AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2006 > March > 24 > Entry
Should soda cans require obesity warning labels?
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
Warning: Reading this column may make you smarter.
Consider Darwin’s natural law before passing man-made ones: Weeding out the weak makes us that much stronger. Although, regrettably, it would rob us of the random news story about the Billy Bobs of this world who hold onto the bottom of a car in search of a mysteroius rattle while their friend drives it down the road.
Sure, requiring warning labels on sugar water may influence someone to consume less. But if warning labels worked, we wouldn’t have smokers.
A recent petition to the FDA demands soft drink companies shoulder responsibility for the all-out obesity epidemic rampant across the U.S. If they don’t comply lawsuits will surely follow. But before we go off on a litigious wingding, consider the obvious: the fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings. That is, unless we want to enforce labels on all products – from fruit consumption to hair dryer use. Do we really need a warning to not swallow a lemon whole?
This doesn’t mean soda companies shouldn’t comply with these silly demands. Not because they’d be doing some good but because we live in a litigious society, always ready to place blame on somebody else. Soft drink companies should do everything legally possible to protect themselves from idiots who can’t take responsibility for their poor decisions.
I don’t have to be a scientist to know a carbonated, sugar-rich beverage with no vitamin content is bad for my health. And I’m smart enough to know obesity isn’t caused by drinking a Coke or Pepsi. Sustaining a healthy weight means exercising and portion control; it means resisting the temptation of ‘super-sizing’ my happy meal; and, it means being skeptical about processed food products like soft drink’s close kin: the diet soda.
Diet sodas don’t cause obesity but a recent controversial study in lab rats suggests diet sodas containing aspartame are tied to cancer. So again: can we really put a label on common sense? Sugar water is bad for you, even when you use fake sugar. And eating a lemon whole will make you choke.
But before I go — and to avoid any lawsuits — here’s another warning: Shaunti may argue against me.
Rebuttal
Yes, one reason for the obesity epidemic is those who choose to ignore the unwelcome reality that Super-Sizing value meals will Super-Size waistlines. But there is another reason: lack of information. You must have good information to use “common sense” about it, and once I researched this issue I realized just how much information the average person is lacking.
Several recent peer-reviewed studies have claimed that increased consumption of sugary soft drinks isn’t just one reason for the obesity epidemic; it’s the main reason. And here’s where the average person lacks information: the problem is that U.S. soft drinks don’t use regular table sugar. They use high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), which the body processes totally differently. Forgive the technical jargon, but consider this clip from a 2004 American Journal of Clinical Nutrition article: “The digestion, absorption, and metabolism of fructose differ from those of glucose….unlike glucose, fructose does not stimulate insulin secretion or enhance leptin production.”
Translation: high fructose corn syrup is much worse than other sugars because it doesn’t spur our bodies to process its calories properly or to generate any sense that our appetite has been sated. As a result, high fructose corn syrup contributes far more to making us fat than “normal” sugar.
Because most people simply don’t know how unusually fattening HFCS soft drinks are, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is trying to get warning labels that explain this. They also want soda vending machines banned from schools, noting that most teens get 15 percent of their total calories from soft drinks! And that means that both obesity and other elements of still-developing bone and body health are at stake.
The CSPI says that education is reducing soda consumption slightly. But when I asked CSPI executive director Michael Jacobson, if common sense and market forces should just be allowed to work on their own, even this conservative had to agree with his common sense answer: “At a time of an obesity epidemic, we shouldn’t wait 25 years to see if a laissez-faire approach will work. Especially since the soft-drink industry spends about $600 million in advertising to ensure that [it doesn’t].”
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By candide
March 27, 2006 07:13 AM | Link to this
Thank you for smoking!
By Lyrazel
March 27, 2006 08:51 AM | Link to this
If Americans are so stupid to need warning labels on cans of soft-drinks then what are we doing with with stockpiles of nuclear weapons?
Obesity has become a medical issue…since there is so much money to be made by the medical industry….ah except in fashion, tv and movies and advertising where anorexia rules regardless if one is selling trucks or linguini with alfredo sauce the eating diner and Bronco driver is always thin. In America we show NO FAT PEOPLE EATING IN COMMERCIALS ABOUT FOOD, BEER, SODAS. No fat people are ever shown except as failures in news stories covertly submitted as Health Information Guidelines by the same folks who revised the FOOD PYRAMID (remember have 12 servings of Pasta and Bread?) and obesity epidemics. Look deeper into the agricultural business. Here is an industry which since 1950 has added corn sweetener to just about every prepared food bought and sold in America. Guess what! Corn sweetener is fattening! Guess what—obesity also sells diet plans! Dieting is a multi-billion dollar industry complete with its own government lobbyists, scientists and media dis-information specialists. The big government & ADM subsidized Low-fat diet—is not really good for you (how many years and billions to find out Big Food Industry discovered: LOW FAT MEANS HIGH SUGAR CONTENT… corn sweeteners…have no fat! GOSH GEE WHIZ! (Did you ever munch chocolate Low-Fat Cookies on your diet? Eat your cake and Diet? Hmmm) So—for what its worth—stop listening to the government and ADM. While in a supermarket checkout lane read how many products you just bought contain corn sweetener additives—from dog food to cereal, plain yogurt to juices, baked beans from Natural Organics Whole Bran Bread (dont be fooled) to Campbells—we are the corn sweetener society. Maybe we should have a warning: AMERICAN PROCESSED AND FOOD MARKETED CAUSES OBESITY !Its not just in soft drinks Shaunti—its in milk!
By Just Being Me
March 27, 2006 09:07 AM | Link to this
Okay, I can’t believe they actually expect us to discuss this nonsense…
That said, I don’t see how anyone can say much more than a few sentences on the subject. Mine are: anyone who believes that soft drinks cause obesity has a much bigger problem than managing weight. I just learned last week that the 10 oz. apple and grape juices in my refrigerator at work have 210 calories, whereas the 12 oz. Dr. Pepper has 150. Go figure. Either way, it doesn’t take a body with normal metabolism too long to burn those calories, and they’ll burn even faster if the person exercises during the day.
Eat smart. Exercise. You won’t have to worry about whether or not there was a warning label on that Snapple.
Bottom line, soft drinks don’t cause obesity, consumers do (and in some cases, hormonal imbalances and other medical conditions). So, my answer is, no. Soda cans should not require obesity warning labels. How ridiculous.
This is going to be a touchy subject. I suggest we tread lightly. This might get uglier than the homosexuality and abortion debates.
By Chilao
March 27, 2006 09:20 AM | Link to this
See they got the text matching the author; late Friday, with the Shaunti may argue against me from Shaunti made my wonder if she was shizoid. I was puzzled in a major way, some things did not add up.
Even more confused, so wonder if the editors supply the topic and who gets to argue what side is also assigned?
I thought conservatives were against those kinds of notices on products and liberals were for babysitting consumers. what gives, there?
But I think all this is hilarious. I told the potato-chip/cheetos/soft drink guzzling crowd about 10 plus years ago: “When they are done going after smokers/big tobacco, you can be sure they will be coming after the purveyors of fat“(exaclty how I put it). Iwas suggesting they best help support smokers, or there would be no smokers interested in supporting them when the time came. Of course what I always found more hilarious was some grossly overweight individual, chowing down on the cheetos, telling me they thought smoking was a disgusting habit. I always reply “Yeah, I look at overeating the same way”. LOL As previously mentioned, I smoke. And have recommended suing McDonalds for years, well as long as they would be so insistent about suing the tobacco companies.
Looking forward to the movie Thank You for Smoking.
what is the stat?: 425,000 or so die from smoking-related illnesses yearly, and over 300,000 die from obesity related issues. so a 75 percent ratio, ballpark, makes it a serious public health issue. and for the record, I drink perhaps 3 cans of soft drinks a month. Maybe 5 in the summer.
But warning labels on soft drink cans? Heck, NO. Wait, the universe is creating better idiots, maybe it is a good idea. LMAO
By Bruce
March 27, 2006 09:24 AM | Link to this
O.K. this is so lame I vote we create our own topic and not even bother with the one above.
By Bruce
March 27, 2006 09:25 AM | Link to this
O.K. this is so lame I vote we create our own topic and not even bother with the one above.
By Just Being Me
March 27, 2006 09:31 AM | Link to this
I second the motion, Bruce. As long as it’s not abortion or homosexuality.
I wouldn’t mind revisiting the subject of illegal immigrants, or the Fair Tax (both of those subjects are discussed briefly in the Opinions section…
By Jack
March 27, 2006 09:32 AM | Link to this
If we do this, where will it stop? About the only things that don’t make one obese are laxitives so we will need warnings on everything we consume. Imagine just one little label on something and everyone would comply and not use to excess and POOF, no more obese folks.
By Whiley
March 27, 2006 09:39 AM | Link to this
Who here watches those Nanny 911 shows? That’s some scary stuff. Typical parents raising crazy kids. Junk food galore.
By Julia
March 27, 2006 09:41 AM | Link to this
I think there should be ALOT more labels required and placed on dangerous foods and drinks. But I don’t see it happening.
Processed/chemical foods,hydrogenated oils,artificial sweeteners,corn syrup,etc are all bad for you and cause disease such as cancer as well as heart problems. Hydrogenated oila should definitely carry a warning label.
Not everyone is aware of some of the nutritional concerns regarding these products. Alot of folks just trust that “if it wasn’t safe it wouldn’t be on the market”. This way of thinking is dangerous.
We all know the FDA would never appove of someting that could cause us any harm right??? Wrong.
I would advise buying organic. No pesticides/chemicals/preservatives/artificial coloring/etc. And seeing a nutritional doctor or naturopathic doctor is the way to go to ensure you are getting the nutrients you need to avoid disease and stay healthy.
I wouldn’t go with an “obesity” label however-I would go with something worded a little different.
By prechrchet
March 27, 2006 09:55 AM | Link to this
I can’t believe I am writing this, because I agree with Diane on this one.
If you read the labels on the cans, you see what the drink contains. The consumer has been forewarned. Americans are relying waaaay too much on the government to do their thinking for them.
Wake up, people
By The72John
March 27, 2006 10:13 AM | Link to this
I like the idea of a topic change…this is the worst topic…ever.
Let’s do immigration so that some of the good Christians (some, not all!) can talk about how much they hate Hispanics. It’ll give ‘em a new target for a while.
By kimberly
March 27, 2006 10:13 AM | Link to this
I agree that this is a totally “DUH” topic. Diane is right in that people who drink sodas KNOW they are consuming something that can make them fat. Duh.
However (and it pains me to validate Shaunti, but I’ll be fair), I’d like to point out that most Americans are not aware that our food — not just soda — is LOADED with corn syrup, which is NOT sugar. That’s why Co-cola doesn’t taste as good as it used to! Few sweetened foods actually contain cain sugar anymore. READ THE LABELS, and know what you’re sticking in your body! Corn products are indeed messing up our bodies and propping up the medical and pharmaceutical industries! HFCS = yuck! Let’s burn ‘em in our cars instead!
By kimberly
March 27, 2006 10:24 AM | Link to this
72John, are you saying that these “immigration reform” bills are the result of racism? Are you suggesting that good “Chrissss-chen” folks could be racist? That’s what it looks like to me.
By Chilao
March 27, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this
Sugar beets are also a primary source of food-sweeteners. A big agricultural product in the northern plain states.
Immigration - I thought NAFTA was going to make all those south-of-the-borders folk want to stay home for those well-paying jobs. Think it was sold that way. So US multi-nationals moved production to border areas, hired mostly women at low wages, (Women less inclined to be union organizers in Latin countries) and bypassed all the EPA regulations in the USA. Great for a multinational’s wealth creation. Did I miss anything? And the men still need to come north, and Mexico prefers that, beats a social revolution at home. LOL
By Jack
March 27, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this
The FDA standard for food is” If you can’t see the bugs with your bare eyes, it’s ok to eat.”
By The72John
March 27, 2006 10:30 AM | Link to this
It’s possible I’m suggesting that some “Christians” aren’t nearly as dilligent in following Christ’s commands to welcome the stranger and shelter the needy as they are in creating “loopholes” and exceptions for those commands, and doing so in a manner so Byzantine and tortuous that they would make the most hardened, jaded, and wiley lawyer alive spontaneously combust from the mere act of attempting to follow said “logic”.
By The72John
March 27, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this
The FDA standard for food is” If you can’t see the bugs with your bare eyes, it’s ok to eat.”
That’s why you buy kosher food as often as possible. Their standards are WAY higher.
By Just Being Me
March 27, 2006 10:41 AM | Link to this
So, John, once the “strangers” are here, do you think they should be afforded the same rights and privileges as citizens?
By lozen
March 27, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this
Hello. I agree this is one lame topic! I agree with Chilao too that conservatives are really out of bounds with wanting to control everything we do. I would have thought Shaunti would be against labeling and Diane would be for it. Just shows you can’t even stereotype conservatives and libruls no more! I read parts of “the decline and fall of the roman empire” this weekend. Folks, we are hanging over the edge here!
By The72John
March 27, 2006 10:48 AM | Link to this
So, John, once the “strangers” are here, do you think they should be afforded the same rights and privileges as citizens?
Well, since most of the illegals are being treated like virtual slaves by their employers, the least we can do is give them something back.
Bottom line - immigrants made this country and continue to make this country. It’s not like this is the first time there’s been an ethnic wave infusing into our culture, and it won’t be the last.
Whatever their ethnicity or standing, no human being deserves to be mistreated or denied basic medical care if they need it.
By Mara
March 27, 2006 10:54 AM | Link to this
72J - Kosher isn’t just more sanitary, it’s also widely agreed that kosher slaughtering techniques are more humane, too.
By Mara
March 27, 2006 10:55 AM | Link to this
72J - Kosher isn’t just more sanitary, it’s also widely agreed that kosher slaughtering techniques are more humane, too.
By Jack
March 27, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this
As long as they come here and work, I have no problem with them being here. If they come to commit crime or bilk off of our welfare system, we should send them back. They are here to improve their lives, can’t blame them for that.
By The72John
March 27, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this
Just to clarify my position somewhat - I don’t deny that there is a flood of people pouring into the country illegally, and they are creating something of a strain on the taxbase. Even though they DO pay some tax - sales tax - they don’t contribute via property or income taxes.
My objection is to treating the immigrants like they are the guilty parties, when in reality most of them are just people desperately searching for a better life. Some conservatives say “Well, they’re CRIMINALS”. Sorry, but I don’t buy that argument. Their only crime is, again, searching for a better life. I’m sure every one of us, for instance, has broken various laws - speeding, underage drinking, whatever…let he who is without guilt…
If we want to stem the tide of illegals into the country and get the immigrant population contributing to the tax base, then we need to go after the real crooks - the people who are willing to use them for cheap, regulation-free labor.
Oh, right - conservatives these days are so far up the rear-ends of big business that they wouldn’t DREAM of going after the real culprits. They would rather whip up a xenophobic anti-immigrant frenzy so that no one is focusing on the actual problem.
By Just Being Me
March 27, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this
John, your 10:57 raises a point in favor of the Fair Tax. How much more money would we take in if we had a consumption tax instead of an income tax? I think I read that there are 11 million illegal immigrants across the country… that’s quite a bit of tax, and at the very least, it could help make up for the lost tax revenue from evaders.
I can discuss either one of these subjects all day, since I don’t really have a definite opinion on either subject.
The only thing I can come up with regarding the immigrants is that if they are here, they need to be permitted to work lawfully (you all know I’m a labor activist), so that they can receive fair wages and pay fair taxes.
By Jack
March 27, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this
How are the slaughtering techniques more humane?
By The72John
March 27, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this
Maybe we would make up as much as we would lose when the Fair Tax allows corporations to pay no taxes whatsoever.
By kimberly
March 27, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this
Don’t be fooled, people. CORPORATIONS (and their chief stockholders as a result) are our biggest welfare recipients!
By Bruce
March 27, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this
There are ways for these same group of folks to come into this country in a LEGAL manner, why do they have to come illegaly? Most immigrants that helped form this country came legally. This has nothing to do with rather legal citizens break the laws of this country or not. No one says that can’t come to America, just do it legally. Why is that so had to understand?
By Just Being Me
March 27, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this
From what I’ve read, with their ability to write just about everything off as a business expense, corporations pay wayyyyy less than they should anyway. And, don’t forget to throw in all the money we’d save by nearly eliminating the need for the IRS.
As I said, I don’t necessarily think the FT is the answer, but I do believe strongly that our current tax system sucks hard. We do need a new system.
By The72John
March 27, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this
Gee Bruce, if it were so EASY, don’t you think they would do it?
You’re the first “Good” Christian to start the immigrant bashing. Why am I not surprised.
Again, why don’t you worry about the people who are creating the demand for illegal labor? It’s a lot easier to despise someone because of racial and ethnic differences, isn’t it, Bruce?
By Chilao
March 27, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this
Jack - from a Jewish website, I did not know either, just knew the blood was drained, after slaughter.
Ritual slaughter is known as shechitah, and the person who performs the slaughter is called a shochet, both from the Hebrew root Shin-Chet-Tav, meaning to destroy or kill. The method of slaughter is a quick, deep stroke across the throat with a perfectly sharp blade with no nicks or unevenness. This method is painless, causes unconsciousness within two seconds, and is widely recognized as the most humane method of slaughter possible.
By Chilao
March 27, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this
that was from:
www.jewfaq.org
By Mara
March 27, 2006 11:24 AM | Link to this
72John - many of the previous influxes of immigrants were pre-Immigration Law waves. It wasn’t until the 1920’s that Congress decided that controlled immigration was better than the “come one, come all” philosophy of the previous systems. My greats came over just after the civil war, around 1880 or so. Even then there were laws. According to family legend, they had to undergo medical exams to make sure they weren’t deseased, work training history to make sure they wouldn’t end up a drain on society, and were required to disclose their cash-on-hand to prove they wouldn’t be living on the streets. They complied with the laws, such as they were. Why is it so hard for illegal immigration advocates to understand that the law is the law? Congress made the choice to limit the number of immigrants to no more than society could assimilate during a given period. If that number isn’t enough, Congress should be lobbied and the law should be changed. Not broken, spit on, ignored, or mocked. Changed. So, why shouldn’t we have the right to insist that anyone who wants to live here has to wait their turn? Isn’t that just basic fairness to those who stood (and are standing) in line to do the thing properly? Why shouldn’t we require those who want to live here to respect the law?
By GOB
March 27, 2006 11:25 AM | Link to this
“Most immigrants that helped form this country came legally.”
Bruce - Do you think the Native Americans feel this way?
By Jack
March 27, 2006 11:25 AM | Link to this
The gov’t doesn’t have the balls to eliminate the IRS and go with the fair tax. Another benefit would be the added revenue when drug dealers buy their toys, they would pay their fair share. The gov’t should remember what happened in 1776. Taxation without representation doesn’t fly here.
By The72John
March 27, 2006 11:27 AM | Link to this
By the way, Bruce - are you REALLY so ignorant or naive as to believe that the average impoverished laborer from south-of-the-border has the wherewithal, resources, or knowledge needed to contact the US Dept. of Immigration and obtain a greencard?
The only difference between this wave of immigrants and previous waves is that we’ve decided we don’t want the tired and poor anymore.
By The72John
March 27, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this
Isn’t that just basic fairness to those who stood (and are standing) in line to do the thing properly? Why shouldn’t we require those who want to live here to respect the law
Again, lay the blame where it belongs - on the factories and farms who create the demand for illegal immigrant labor.
By lozen
March 27, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this
What is wrong with AJC? Where is my post?
By Julia
March 27, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this
The only difference between this wave of immigrants and previous waves is that we’ve decided we don’t want the tired and poor anymore.
Good posts 72John.
By GOB
March 27, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this
It seems odd to me that there are so many people who take such a heavy-handed view of immigration. I work for a company that has plants all over Latin America, and guess what, they are already moving out of Mexico because they have to pay the workers too much (and by too much, I mean about the equivalent of $5 a day for 12 hours of work).
Is it any wonder why they are coming to this country? The wait to go through the proper channels often takes years. If you could feed your children and provide them with a better life without having to wait that long, I think most people would do just what most of the illegals are doing.
We should realize how lucky we are, and most of us have what we have simply because of where we were born. We have opportunities that most of the world doesn’t. It seems very arrogant to me to attempt to deny others those same opportunities because they weren’t born here.
By GOB
March 27, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this
Mara - The laws that were passed to restrict immigration had less to do with the ability to assimilate into the US society and more to do with their fear of losing the majority and, thus, losing power.
By kimberly
March 27, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this
Jack, good point; however, I am certain that I NOW EXPERIENCE taxation without represention. You see, I write my elected representatives all the time. And they [have their staff] make it clear to me regularly that they don’t give a rat’s fuzzy a— what I think. Why not? I mean, that is their sworn oath to represent me, right? Not without a BIG FAT CAMPAIGN DONATION, an industry paying me to be a lobbyist, or a congregation I can promise to sway at the next election! In truth, with the exception of Ga. Secretary of State Cathy Cox, I have ZERO representation in government. Zip, zilch, notta. BTW, I just filed my tax return.
By Jack
March 27, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this
My point exactly my Dear. :)
By The72John
March 27, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this
Hey, my “representation” is using my tax dollars to attempt to pass laws that discriminate against me.
How’s THAT for a b***.
By Just Being Me
March 27, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this
GOB, I don’t think the pro-regulation folks are trying to deny immigrants opportunities. I think they’re trying to ensure that everyone has the same equal and fair chance to come to this country safely, and that they will contribute to the economy.
Personally, my concern is how they are treated. The main reason I would ever support any legislation to control the numbers of immigrants that come here is that if they remain illegal, they will almost definitely be exploited. We can’t protect them with our employment laws and union contracts if they are undocumented.
I understand that some may not even live long enough to see “their turn,” but how else can we be fair to all that want to be here?
By Netbanker
March 27, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this
Agreed…stupid topic and we’ve entered bizzaro world where the conservative stance of personal responsibility only applies to those issues that deal with sex and sexuality.
I’ve got another topic for us. Did anyone read the artcle in the print edition regarding Osama bin Laden and the upcoming attack on the U.S.? He’s been biding his time and addressing the complaints of fellow Islamists about: lack of appropriate warning of attack, offer of a truce, offer to allow the ‘infidels’ to convert to Islam. Over the past several years the nature of Osama’s communications have changed and do appear to be addressing all of these. The most frighten aspect was obtaining a fatwa accepting the use of nuclear attacks on the U.S. that sets the acceptable upper limit of civilians killed at 10 million. We’re safe alright.
By Mara
March 27, 2006 11:53 AM | Link to this
to no particular person - Is Mexico a democracy? Why have they consistantly elected governments that show no interest in improving the economic conditions of their country? Could they elect such a government? When did America become responsible for repairing the damage done by the incompetence of a foreign government to it’s own people?
And John, there’s plenty of blame to go around. Your illegal aliens aren’t all the sainted martyrs they’re being painted as, they come here fully knowing that they are doing something illegal and knowing that they will continue breaking laws (employment verification, job safety laws, fair labor laws, insurance, liscenses, etc. etc.) instead of fixing what’s wrong in their own country. Instead of requiring their own governments to step up to the plate. And damn straight these business’ should be fined. Ol’ Dubya has really fallen down on the job there. I admit that Slick Willie wasn’t terribly gung-ho on the process, but Dubya has changed Clinton’s pre-inspection warning from the INS to a wink-and-a-nod during on-the-job inspections. Sheesh. Fine ‘em in large enough amounts that it’ll make ‘em think twice about hiring illegal workers. Fine ‘em enough and don’t let ‘em write it off as a “business expense”.
See, plenty of blame to go around. That excuses none of the parties. Not the companies that hire and exploit illegals, not the INS/Homeland Security for leaving our borders unsecured, and not the illegal immigrant who just doesn’t respect the laws of this country. That’s my opinion. Come to us legally and we’ll open our arms to you. Sneak in like a thief in the night, don’t expect any sympathy.
By Renee
March 27, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this
Hi all, won’t be on for long today. I see that you all have moved from topic, THANK GOODNESS, as this was the most ridiculous topic!
Okay illegal immigrant topic. Here goes, really quickly since I’m on short time. I think something really needs to be done to control our borders better. Right now, we leave ourselves open for anything to happen again. I heard it best on Fox News this weekend, it’s not “if we get attacked again, it’s when we get attacked again”.
Fair tax - yes, definitely!!!
I would like to bring up another topic that I think bears significant importance. Global warming. Time has done an in depth story on this and the most recent report indicates that the polar caps will be melted by 2060. This would be total devastation to the planet.
Thoughts.
Hugs to JBM!!
By Just Being Me
March 27, 2006 11:56 AM | Link to this
I have to say that I’m a lot more pleased with my local elected officials than I ever was in New York. Now, once you get up to the Mark Taylor, Sonny Purdue level, all that changes.
By GOB
March 27, 2006 11:57 AM | Link to this
I think to saying to them “wait years to be able to come to this country” is absolutly denying them opportunities to better their lives.
I understand that there are areas in which illegals do not pay their share (income and SS tax), and there should be efforts made to curb those abuses.
My real problem is that we have laws that make it illegal for segments of the world to try and better their lives unless they get the goverment’s permission. I think i read something some where about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
By kimberly
March 27, 2006 11:58 AM | Link to this
Denying medical treatment to immigrants, (or anyone!) or making them afraid to seek treatment for fear of arrest and deportation, puts us ALL at risk for infectious diseases. Whatever restrictions are made and enforced, medical treatment should be exempt and completely seperate! Tuberculosis, anyone?
By Chilao
March 27, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this
Mara - Mexico was a single-party and very corrupt at that, state for many years, say 1915 Pancho Villa era to about 10 years ago, when the main controlling-party lost elections, finally. Don’t hold me to the exact years, but single-party for years very true.
By GOB
March 27, 2006 12:06 PM | Link to this
Mara - Mexico has and has historically had an incredibly corrupt government that has/had no interest in the betterment of it’s people. As long as the politicians were able to get their take, they didnt/dont really care what else happens. Therefore, the argument that they should simple make the changes in their own government to allow them to enjoy a better quality of life as not realistic. If it were that easy, wouldnt every country in the world follow that route?
Our immigration laws are more about voting power than anything else. When those in power saw huge influxes of “others,” they changed the laws to keep the numbers down. Now that the “others (see hispanic)” are starting to vote republican more and more, we see the administration talking about softening the laws.
By Archie
March 27, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this
Obesity warnings should not be required for soda cans but proper information is not a bad idea for as many foods as possible. My attitude is why not offer a more healthy drink in the school vending machines in the first place. I mean why not offer water,juices and other healthy drinks in school vending machines and take out the sodas since it is school I’m talking about. Obesity is a problem partially because Americans have the money to eat out at “good” restaurants and as Americans we don’t know how to eat healthy. In the south we love that fatback,barbecue pork,fried chicken,cheesecake,red velvet cake, etc. Man I’ve got to go to lunch.
By Archie
March 27, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this
Obesity warnings should not be required for soda cans but proper information is not a bad idea for as many foods as possible. My attitude is why not offer a more healthy drink in the school vending machines in the first place. I mean why not offer water,juices and other healthy drinks in school vending machines and take out the sodas since it is school I’m talking about. Obesity is a problem partially because Americans have the money to eat out at “good” restaurants and as Americans we don’t know how to eat healthy. In the south we love that fatback,barbecue pork,fried chicken,cheesecake,red velvet cake, etc. Man I’ve got to go to lunch.
By Chilao
March 27, 2006 12:34 PM | Link to this
The Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) ruled in Mexico from 1929 to the early 1990/s.
By Chilao
March 27, 2006 12:37 PM | Link to this
pronounced in Mexico, I just learned, as “Pree”. (PRI) (not P-R-I….LOL. I just called someone, said “P-R-I”, she said, “you mean “Pree”?)
By kimberly
March 27, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this
Archie, that’s a good point, but I’d also like to point out that someone who works two or three jobs to make ends meet does not have time to shop for and prepare fresh veggies and lean meats in their own kitchen. For many of America’s working poor, Burger King, McDonald’s and QuickTrip ARE breakfast, lunch, & dinner.
By Bruce
March 27, 2006 12:54 PM | Link to this
I don’t think what I said was bashing anyone, well maybe someone breaking the law. Like I said come legally and I will defend your right to be here but until then……
And 72John my ignorance is second only to yours.
By Amused
March 27, 2006 01:20 PM | Link to this
If you like to think so, Bruce. Perhaps you can tell me exactly how I am ignorant? I’m not the one who believes in a lilly-white perfect world where starving people can call up the US Government and have a visa expresss mailed to them…that’s apparently you.
By The72John
March 27, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this
Amused = Me
By Netbanker
March 27, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this
Archie…I agree with much of what you said, but to quote Ms. Scarlet O’Hara “fiddle-dee-dee” on the idea of any more warnings! I had a good southern meal last night that we prepared at home made up of BBQ ribs, mac n’ cheese, beans, and cole slaw. I would have LOVED some red velvet cake for dessert, but we have Extreme Moosetracks ice cream instead. My point is that while most southern foods (and I had a load of them last night) might be fattening I am anything but fat. I watch the portions that I eat, I exercise, and also stay active instead of bonding with the sofa. My recommendation to those who are fat or obsese (recognizing that SOME people are that way due to medical issues)…Put down the damn fork and walk away from the food! It’s worked for me for 39 years and I am definitely am one of those people who really enjoys food.
By Susie
March 27, 2006 01:39 PM | Link to this
What diane said, “if warning labels worked, we woudn’t have smokers.” I agree. And nor would we have any DUI’s, or Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. A warning label is only as smart as the idiot reading it.
By Archie
March 27, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this
Kimberly, you can get healthy food in fast food places such as Taco Bell,Wendy’s,Burger King, and Captain D’s. Those are all fast food and cheap. I know from experience you can get a salad for $1 and a junior burger for a 1.29 and a drink for 1.20. That’s 3.71 with tax at BK. There are your .99 kid’s nights. I just found out that one of the mega-churches here in Columbia serves lunch. Anyway my point is you can eat healthy without spending an arm and a leg but you have to be informed and even though you work many jobs you have to make the effort. As Nephew Tommy said weeks ago you have to eat “them greenbeans”. People that do work multiple jobs probably need info on how to get to healthy food in their situation. Now that is a worthy topic. I need information just like everyone else Kimberly, thanks for the response.
By Archie
March 27, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this
Kimberly, you can get healthy food in fast food places such as Taco Bell,Wendy’s,Burger King, and Captain D’s. Those are all fast food and cheap. I know from experience you can get a salad for $1 and a junior burger for a 1.29 and a drink for 1.20. That’s 3.71 with tax at BK. There are your .99 kid’s nights. I just found out that one of the mega-churches here in Columbia serves lunch. Anyway my point is you can eat healthy without spending an arm and a leg but you have to be informed and even though you work many jobs you have to make the effort. As Nephew Tommy said weeks ago you have to eat “them greenbeans”. People that do work multiple jobs probably need info on how to get to healthy food in their situation. Now that is a worthy topic. I need information just like everyone else Kimberly, thanks for the response.
By Archie
March 27, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this
Kimberly, you can get healthy food in fast food places such as Taco Bell,Wendy’s,Burger King, and Captain D’s. Those are all fast food and cheap. I know from experience you can get a salad for $1 and a junior burger for a 1.29 and a drink for 1.20. That’s 3.71 with tax at BK. There are your .99 kid’s nights. I just found out that one of the mega-churches here in Columbia serves lunch. Anyway my point is you can eat healthy without spending an arm and a leg but you have to be informed and even though you work many jobs you have to make the effort. As Nephew Tommy said weeks ago you have to eat “them greenbeans”. People that do work multiple jobs probably need info on how to get to healthy food in their situation. Now that is a worthy topic. I need information just like everyone else Kimberly, thanks for the response. Having a hard time posting.
By Archie
March 27, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this
Net and Kimberly I didn’t say we need more warnings but more information. Netbanker that sounded like a good meal and I just walked 1.5 miles at lunchtime. I am sorry for the multiple posts but my browser acts funny when I hit the post button. Kimberly did bring up a good topic,though. How do we help really busy people eat healthy?
By Susie
March 27, 2006 01:52 PM | Link to this
And Shaunti’s “lack of information” excuse? Which one of us, (anyone here) didn’t have the “food pyramid” drilled into our heads for 12 years in “health” class at school? Remember the teensiest part of the pyramid? “fats and sweets?” it was the teensiest part for a reason…because that’s supposed to be the “smallest” portion of our diets. I grasped that at the age of 7!
When I was 7, I ate what my mother cooked and set before me. When I got older, I made a CHOICE as to what to eat, fully knowing what I learned at age 7 and every year thereafter in health class. There’s not one person who didn’t learn about basic nutrition in school.
Back in October of last year, I actually READ a can of Cherry Coke. Did you all know that there are 42 Grams of SUGAR in a Cherry Coke??? One of my other favorite drinks, a carbonated drink that I can’t find in GA, has 50 grams of sugar!!! FIFTY! I figured it up, that’s almost a quarter of a cup of sugar in one can! I don’t know why it doesn’t solidify with that much sugar!
That day, I replaced my two or three cans of Coke per day with water. Since then, I’ve changed NOTHING else about my dietary habits, but I have dropped from a size 10 jeans to a size 6. THAT is the difference those drinks make, and I’m living proof of it. I don’t need a label to tell me that cutting out about 120 grams of sugar a day made those pants sizes fall off me.
Now, I “allow” myself a Coke whenever I REALLY want one, rather than just swigging them all day. That way I don’t “fall off the wagon” and drink a 12 pack in one sitting! I feel so much better, probably just from being better hydrated, and from NOT having all that POISON crap in me!
By kimberly
March 27, 2006 01:55 PM | Link to this
Archie, yes, fast food is now offering healthier options. Wendy’s was among the first to offer low-fat items. The trend really began to gain ground when Supersize Me won at the Sundance film festival. It was a HUGE embarrassment to McDonald’s, whose cheese & fried chicken laden, ranch-covered salads are just about as fattening as their cheeseburgers & milkshakes. Yes, it IS about the choices we make! Education can only be a good thing is this regard. There are no labels on fast food, and a lot of [ignorant] people just don’t realize that they’re eating TOXIC CRAPOLA.
Rent the movie!
By kimberly
March 27, 2006 02:01 PM | Link to this
Susie, Rock ON, gurrrl! Me too! Hey, it’s a lot easier to be a skinny chick in America than a buxom one, huh? Men that used to look right past me like I wasn’t even there, now stop and smile and check me out. (Shallow…. sad…. and proof that we are, as a society, shallow and sad.) But it sure feels GOOOOOOD to be a size six! Also, my cholesterol came down 20 points, and my triglycerides came down 50! FREE YOURSELVES, PEOPLE!
By Susie
March 27, 2006 02:12 PM | Link to this
Kimberly, I don’t really feel like I look any different, but that’s probably because the change was so gradual that I didn’t notice it happening until one day my pants were falling off! I guess I do look smaller, but I really don’t see it. I was never overweight in the first place, not really, but I did have a few pounds to lose, apparently. I think I lost all over a little bit so it’s not so obvious. I am not a good “dieter,” so if not drinking Cokes and other carbonated drinks is my only sacrifice, I’m happy to do it.
It is sad that it’s easier to be skinny, but I guess that’s the way it is.
Hey, another thing I’ve discovered is that if you eat a small bunch of red grapes first thing in the morning, and then another one any time during the day when you need a snack, you’ll even lose more weight, because they satisfy your “carb” need and the other foods you crave will be healthier instead of garbage. The red grapes also act as a diuretic and help you not retain fluids, from what I read. I started craving the grapes after I cut out the Cokes, I guess because my body was screaming for the sugar. Anyway, they keep you from overeating at meals, so that’s one good thing…I find that the most important “bunch” is my first-thing-in-the-morning bunch…I eat less ALL DAY if I have them first thing.
By Archie
March 27, 2006 02:12 PM | Link to this
Sounds like you’re fine Kimberly. As men we are visual creatures and I don’t think we’re shallow,we just like what we like. Kimberly keep making your point about your cholestorol. I feel better about my eating habits now than I do about my eating habits ten years ago.
By Moni
March 27, 2006 02:12 PM | Link to this
Okay, here’s my proposed warning label:
“Eating too much will make you fat.”
Put it on everything, except maybe celery - did you know that you actually burn calories eating celery?
As for taxes, I’m for the flat tax. Eliminate the IRS and filing taxes; just take 10% out of my paycheck.
By Chilao
March 27, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this
I thought it an accomplishment, without even trying really, to have an acceptable cholesterol level the first time I was tested, at age 45 or so. I “blamed” it on my health-food-nut parents. I eat alot of avocadoes, 4-6 a week, all sliced(not guacamoled), and I learn that they actually reduce cholesterol. I learned that at the avocado growers a*’n web site so I know it has to be true. LOL(A little pun on what we learn on the web, may or may not be the truth). Have encountered that about avocadoes elsewhere since.
as opposed to the fast food junkies I work with, my age or younger, who have cholesterol “problems” and have to watch what they eat.
I actually credit my healthy eating habits. I have had friends remark “You know, for a smoker, you sure eat well”. LMAO
By Julia
March 27, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this
Kimberly-I’m right there with you. Started eating healthy and gave up the diet sodas and got back to a size 6. The head turns make you feel good but also make you realize that “hey, I’m the same person I used to be on the inside”. The type of guys that do the head turns are not the ones I want to date at this stage. (Still…makes ya feel good.)
By Whiley
March 27, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this
Kimberly, how did you get your cholesterol down 20 points, & how long did that take???
By Archie
March 27, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this
I don’t want a flat tax as that favors the rich. Right now in my tax bracket my effective tax rate is 7.98 so although it sounds good a flat tax would be an increase for me. Taxes need to be adjusted by income. One of the problems that people have with taxes is that they just can’t cheat as good as they would like. No matter what the topic is people just aren’t honest about their motivation. I am speaking of federal taxes.
By Jack
March 27, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this
Woof, woof!!!
By chuck
March 27, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this
Gob, you have a very warped view of the way society works. Hey, I’m just trying to make a better life for my family so I’m going to do that by CUTTING IN LINE.
There are currently 12,000,000 ILLEGAL ALIENS (according to Good Morning America this morning) in the United States. 67% of those are Mexicans. In California alone, the cost to the CITIZENS of that state is over 10,000,000,000 per year. The State’s “cheap labor” costs the average household $1,183 a year. Is it okay for them to make a better life for THEIR families by taking $1183.00 per year away from LEGAL families? In Arizona on welfare and food stamp costs alone, Illegal immigration cost that state $5,000,000 and over $30,000,000 for healthcare. That does not include the millions spent for education, infrastructure, and any manner of other costs associated with increased population. For instance, one county had to bury 100 illegal aliens who died there at a cost of over $200,000 in one year.
In one article:
Even studies claiming some modest overall gain for the economy from immigration ($1 to $10 billion a year) have found that it is outweighed by the fiscal cost ($15 to $20 billion a year) to native taxpayers.2 In short, the average native taxpayer is paying for immigration so that large companies can profit by employing immigrants in low-wage positions.
72john, I don’t take the position that you assume…I think companies who knowingly OR unknowingly hire illegal aliens should be PROSECUTED. I think EVERY agency that receives ANY federal money should be required to report illegals. Every CITIZEN should be required to report illegals.
I don’t understand why this is so difficult for pepole to understand. WE ARE A NATION OF LAWS. Can we just ignore the laws we disagree with? If so, 72john, you should be justifying what Eric Rudolph did. He was just trying to protect innocent babies. Maybe you sympathize with the 9/11 terrorists. After all they were just trying to make the world safe for Islam. If my family is poor, can I steal from YOURS? I just want a better life for them.
The liberal position on this issue is insanity. The conservative one is not much better. It is not right to give a job to someone who is here illegally.
BTW, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics:
Both the number of unemployed persons, 7.2 million, and the unemployment rate, 4.8 percent, were little changed in February. A year earlier, the number of unemployed was 8.0 million, and the jobless rate was 5.4 percent.
We have 12,000,000 illegal aliens and only 7,200,000 unemployed Americans. Do the MATH
By Bruce
March 27, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this
It is really simple, if you want to come into this country, come legally. What do you not understand about that. I don’t care how long it takes. People do it all the time, even some from South of the Border. Now was that really that hard? Simplify the process if that is what it takes but do not allow ANYONE entrance into the US unless they are here legally.
Gee I would continue this intellgent debate with you but I hate doing battle with unarmed people.
By Tek Jansen
March 27, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this
Boy, did this blog come to a screeching halt
By Nikita
March 27, 2006 03:51 PM | Link to this
On the original discussion, it’s possible to eat healthily in most contexts, which of course are too complex to get across on a label. But that label is a great improvement over what we used to have, and it gives us all the information we need, in most cases, to make healthy decisions. Which in my opinion is the best we can do. If anything, I’d support making all food providers list nutritional information in a way that is accessible to the on-site customer. That way we really know what we’re consuming if we care to know.
On to illegal immigration…I dislike illegal immigration for numerous reasons and want it stopped. However, the crowd that blames immigrants solely is either woefully naive or racist. First, most lower and middle class mexicans cannot emigrate or even visit America legally, since the process requires that they demonstrate a large chunk of savings which would be seized by the Mex. Govt. if they disappear or fail to return for additional procedures. Second, the reason they come here is because they fuel the needs of big business for inexpensive, legally-unprotected, grey market labor which allows business to avoid hiring citizens. In other words there’s a powerful incentive for not changing the system to allow working class mexicans to emigrate legally because illegal immigrants are cheaper. So, nothing short of a comprehensive policy which would include workplace raids, heavy fines to employers, deportation, and changes to make the immigration policy more logical would be appropriate.
By candide
March 27, 2006 03:54 PM | Link to this
Moni: 10% is not enough, sorry.
By Netbanker
March 27, 2006 04:22 PM | Link to this
Point taken Archie, but how much more information is needed? It seems to me that food labels have plenty of information on them already especially if you look only at the serving size and number of calories. How fattening a food/beverage is can be pretty easily determined from those two bits of information.
I think Susie pretty much has us covered. We ALL learned about the food pyramid early and repeatedly in school. It’s not rocket science to realize that if you’re gaining weight you either need to burn more calories or consume fewer calories to lose/control weight.
By Julia
March 27, 2006 04:43 PM | Link to this
What’s going on? I can’t view anything past 2:12pm. It’s now 4:41pm! What in the world is happening to this blog?
By Mara
March 28, 2006 08:22 AM | Link to this
Alrighty then. Let’s find out if the AJC W2W is gonna let us post this morning. Any guess on when the “Post” function will cease to actually post the commments? Yesterday it went bonkers at 2:12. I’m gonna put my money on…1:27 p.m. for no reason other than it seems a nice enough number.
Now, to post. I’m sure you all saw the story in todays AJC about the A 55-year-old Lawrenceville man who has been charged with raping and impregnating his 16-year-old daughter, and with raping his 19-year-old mentally disabled stepdaughter.
My question for Jack, Julia, Chuck, Monica or Charlene - all y’all have railed against abortion. Now we see a real (non-hypothetical) situation of incestuous rape resulting in pregnancy. Are you still adamant about re-victimizing this 16-yr old child by forcing her to sacrifice what’s left of her childhood? Are you still comfortable telling her that her rights to say what happens to her own body ended the night her father raped her? Are you?
By Bruce
March 28, 2006 09:40 AM | Link to this
Can’t say I agree with this “Shoot First” legistation, how about you guys?
By Just Being Me
March 28, 2006 09:46 AM | Link to this
Are we having blog problems again, or has no one posted since 2:12 yesterday????
And, speaking of 2:12, Moni, the Flat Tax does not propose taking 10% out of your paycheck??????
By Just Being Me
March 28, 2006 09:51 AM | Link to this
Mara, I think you meant Zack, not Jack.
I didn’t read that article, but I’m going to hunt for it now…
By GOB
March 28, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this
Chuck and Bruce - I am aware that our nation is based on the rule of law. My issue, however, is that it is very easy for you to tell some poor sap who wants to make sure his kids can get an education that he just needs to wait in line, regardless of what happens to him or his family.
The problem isn’t the immigrants; it is the laws that criminalize trying to improve their lives. I believe that the vast majority of illegals would be willing to pay taxes, etc, but they simply aren’t given the chance. What is the real reason behind this country’s insistence on criminalizing it? I understand and agree with having a processing agency, but to have quotas, etc limiting the number of people we allow in seems to go against the very ideals the country was founded on.
A lot of the comments on this topic come across as very smug and condescending. It is the equivalent of a rich teenager looking at a ghetto and asking why they don’t just make more money and buy a nicer house. The only thing that differentiates any of us from a Mexican working in a sewing plant for $5 a day is where our parents happened to live. I think that is something a lot of people forget, or never actually consider it in the first place.
Either that or we are all illegals as far as the Native Americans are concerned…
By kimberly
March 28, 2006 10:03 AM | Link to this
Whiley, I lost 25 pounds in seven months: Six the first month, four the next, and two to four pounds per month subsequently. This is the way to go, as it stays off better, and doesn’t shock your system. The cholesterol/triglyceride results were from my annual exams before and after this effort.
By Chilao
March 28, 2006 10:24 AM | Link to this
speaking of Native Americans, anyone seen the poster, available on a TeeShirt, shows Geronimo and 3 other armed Apaches, with the heading “Homeland Security” and underneath it “Fighting Terrorism since 1492”. I just received three mail-order, one for me, one for a brother, a third for a buddy.
My buddy has vowed to wear it when he is around Republicans. He’s just that kind of guy. He used to run his straight-pipe Harley downtown about 11am Sunday morning.
By Mara
March 28, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this
JBM - you are right. Thanks for catching that “oops!” moment. Goldern typing fingers. Sorry Jack. My mind said “Zack” but my fingers typed “Jack”.
Perhaps I just had you on my mind :^)
By The72John
March 28, 2006 10:39 AM | Link to this
Yes, Chuck, you are so right. Having compassion for poor people who are simply trying to build better lives for themselves is EXACTLY like Eric Rudolph blowing up a gay bar. Brilliant.
This is exactly the kind of compassionless, hate-filled nonsense that I expect from a “Christian” like you. Jesus loves you, as long as you’re white and American, is that it, Chuck? It amazes me how many ways you hypocritical faux-Christians find to avoid actually doing what Christ tells you.
By the way, Schmuck, how many times have YOU exceeded the speed limit? That’s a LAW, isn’t it?
It is really simple, if you want to come into this country, come legally. What do you not understand about that. I don’t care how long it takes. People do it all the time, even some from South of the Border. Now was that really that hard? Simplify the process if that is what it takes but do not allow ANYONE entrance into the US unless they are here legally.
It’s been pointed out to you many times, Bruce, and you keep ignoring it, that most of these people don’t have the resources or the knowledge to go through proper channels.
I realize it’s easier to pretend they do, but they simply don’t.
You and Chuck should start a church together - Our Lady of Self-Righteous Bigotry and Indignation. That seems to describe the both of you to a “t”.
By The72John
March 28, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this
My issue, however, is that it is very easy for you to tell some poor sap who wants to make sure his kids can get an education that he just needs to wait in line, regardless of what happens to him or his family.
You assume that Chuck or Bruce actually care about what happens to people that don’t fit their definition of human. If you aren’t white, heterosexual, Evangelical Christian, and American, they have no compassion or concern for you whatsoever. For them, immigrants are just vermin that need to be cleaned out of their formerly lilly-white towns.
Never mind the fact that immigrant waves have supported this country’s economc since its inception. Just get those non-white non-Protestants OUT!
By kimberly
March 28, 2006 10:50 AM | Link to this
72John, I think you’re missing the point. Chuck comes here to pick on us because he LIKES us, and deep down inside, he really wants to BE one of us, but he doesn’t know how to admit that all the BullDung he’s been slinging all his life is a GollDanged LIE without looking like a complete idjit. Let’s help him find a way to repent and be free.
Chuck….. Just say you’re sorry. Repent, and we’ll forgive you and show you a better way.
By Whiley
March 28, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this
Kimberly that is really good 25 lbs! I’m doing something wrong, I’m completely plateaued. Probably an age thing.
How do you jump-start your metabolism without exercising all day long? (without drugs, yes that takes all the fun out of it)
By Netbanker
March 28, 2006 10:53 AM | Link to this
Before anyone answers Mara’s questions about abortion (and they are very good questions) I suggest you take a read from yesterday’s Opinion page of Bills would intensify pain of sexual assault victims
Think hard about the experiences of this young woman and internalize her first hand account before making blanket statements or restatements of arm chair opinions. There is a lot of truth to the axiom of ‘walking a mile in another person’s shoes’
GOB’s point is also valid regarding each of us being fortunate to have been born in the U.S. and from what I can gather into families that value education and hard work regardless of economic status. Seems to me that many of the illegal immigrant families hold those same values in higher esteem that most American born citizens. What does it say about us that we want to make it harder for people who ascribe to American values to come here in favor of American citizens who seem to reject those values in favor of an entitlement mentality?
By Netbanker
March 28, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this
Ok…yet another topic to banter around…unsecure borders. How frightening is THIS little news ditty? Border guards fail ‘dirty bomb’ test
By Bruce
March 28, 2006 10:57 AM | Link to this
And what you don’t seem to graps is the thousands (maybe millions) that are in the same circumstances as these Mexicans that come, but come legally.
Man you are a piece of work. You sit back and call these imigrants poor and stupid and then critize me! Keep showing your ignorance.
By Mara
March 28, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this
GOB - I completely disagree with your analogy. It’s nothing like the rich person looking down on ghetto folk and thinking that they just need to make more money. It’s very, very different. Here’s a closer example. You got a guy who believes that pot should be legal. He lobbies for it, he protests about it, he writes letters to the editor. At the same time, he realizes that it’s still illegal, so when the drug dealer moves in next door, he calls the cops and reports them. You can sympathize, you can empathize, and you can believe that the law is erroneous. That does not negate the fact (and it is a fact) that being in this country without permission is ILLEGAL.
Do you excuse people who burgle homes for money, maybe even to feed their kids? Do you excuse people who shop-lift and then return the merch for cash? Do you ignore the drug dealer on the corner because obviously, he wouldn’t be dealing drugs if he could make a living legally? At what point do we say, “Oh, that’s okay. They’re only doing it for the money.”? I’m not saying that I’ve never slipped onto the shady side of the law. I’ve sped, I’ve run stop signs, and as a child, I may have liberated a candy bar or two from the local mini-mart. But…I know (and even as a child I knew) that if I’m caught, I should expect to be punished. Do I agree with all laws? No. Do I think that people who break the laws I disagree with should get off, or even be rewarded? No, sir. I don’t. You do the crime, you do the time.
Most of us say that “Yes, we like immigrants” and “Yes, we should let more immigrants come here” and “Yes, the system should be streamlined and expanded to help immigrants become citizens.” But at the same time most also say “Coming to the US illegally is unacceptable.” Contrary to the opinions of many a immigration activist, most of us are not xenophobic or anti-immigrant. Most of us do respect the rule of law. As I said in a previous post, come to us legally and we’ll open our arms to you. Sneak in like a thief in the night, don’t expect any sympathy.
By Jack
March 28, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this
Hi Mara. I knew you couldn’t have meant me. :)
Chuck. If your family is starving and the only way to save them is to cross into another country illegally to work, you wouldn’t do it? (only is the operative word here)
By Bruce
March 28, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this
Well said Mara, I agree 100%
By Just Being Me
March 28, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this
Same issue on a smaller scale:
I live in the APS school “zone.” But, just like the immigrants Gob describes, I want my child to get a better education and my daughter doesn’t test well, so she won’t get accepted into a good private school.
Since moving is not an option for me, I used a friend’s address to get my daughter into a better school, because that’s what’s best for my child.
That’s wrong isn’t it? Should we do away with all these restrictions, despite the pesky matter of taxes, so all our children have an equal opportunity to receive a good education? What happens to the students who rightfully attend the “good” schools? Is it unfair to the taxpayers of the “good” school zone? But, what about the students???
By Julia
March 28, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this
Ok, I think it was Mara who posed the question about the 16 year old rape victim.
Two wrongs never make a right. He committed rape so now you’re going to advocate that she commit murder of an innocent human being? The child has done no wrong and should not have to pay with his or her life for the crimes of the biological father (or mother).
She will have a long road ahead to heal from this experience but why compound it with making her lie on a table while a total stranger (male) inserts things inside her that destroys her baby. (Yes, it’s HER baby as well.)
You should know that some women describe the abortion experience like being raped. You’re giving her much more to live with and causing more trauma to make her end the child’s life.
There’s a book called “Victims and Victors” which goes into detail about children conceived in rape or incest. It goes into detail about the women and their feelings on both sides of the issue. it was very eye opening. You can’t just write off a child conceived this way as someone who will be a wasted life. That’s ridiculous. And yes, there is always adoption-giving a child life instead of death. That’s much more helpful to the healing process than having her live through an abortion as well.
(DISCLAIMER: THIS IS MY OPINION. YOU ASKED FOR IT-SO THERE IT IS.)
P.S. I hope today doesn’t turn into another abortion debate. Let’s go to another topic. We will never agree on this one.
By kimberly
March 28, 2006 11:14 AM | Link to this
Whiley, not gonna lie, Hon. Had to ditch the meds. Nothing worked for me either, until I did. Then I went psycho. Blood sugar roller coaster. Carb cravings, unanswered, turned into some severly unpleasant emotions. Screamed at the dog… poor baby… for things dogs just DO. Went to bed hungry, a lot. Just kept thinking about people who go to bed hungry because they have no choice. Ate a healthy, balanced diet of no more than 1700 calories a day, but usually 1200 to 1500. Once the weak & dizzy stuff passed (several weeks) I was able to begin exercising. Eased into it. Calories are like a budget: numbers over time. Put time over numbers, and you win.
By The72John
March 28, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this
Man you are a piece of work. You sit back and call these imigrants poor and stupid and then critize me! Keep showing your ignorance.
Interesting that you use the word “ignorant”, Bruce. It seems to describe you perfectly. “Poor” is not pejorative, it is descriptive of the circumstances of the typical illegal. As for suggesting I call them stupid, well, that is just silly, and frankly a typical response from someone who most likely gets his political news from Limbaugh and Hannity.
Suggesting that someone lacks a particular piece of information is not analagous with calling him stupid. It’s not as if the average Mexican worker can run home and Google “US Immigration”, now is it? How much do YOU know about the immigration requirements of other countries?
I would also be interested in seeing a demographic breakdown of legal v. illegal immigrants. I suspect that you will find that the legal immigrants are already better off as a group than the illegal.
He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the alien, giving him food and clothing. And you are to love those who are aliens, for you yourselves were aliens in Egypt.
By Jack
March 28, 2006 11:16 AM | Link to this
They should remove his package and feed it to him.
By Chilao
March 28, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this
JBM - laughing at the school issue. I once resided in one state, but since tuition for JC was much cheaper in the next state, had an address at my girlfriend’s Dad’s house, in the next state, and drove 1 hour to school, each way, to get a better tuition rate at the JC. Now I’m not naming states, I’m just sayin’, LOL
By RF
March 28, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this
JBM- eventually we’ll have voucherss so people will be able to choose schools without district lines. I think you did absolutely the right thing. I’d do it too for the sake of my child. I like the way Decatur is doing it. You can pay “tuition” and attend from out of district.
By GOB
March 28, 2006 11:25 AM | Link to this
Mara - I am not disagreeing with what you said at all. My main point is this: All of us that were born in this country find ourselves in a position that is envied by 99% of the world. We have the ability to allow more people access to this position, but because our lawmakers are afraid of losing power, they prohibit large numbers of people from entering the country legally to take advantage of the opportunities here. As soon as the lawmakers feel like their power isn’t threatened, they change the laws, hoping to get another voting block.
For a country founded on the ideals of liberty and opportunity, we all seem to be pretty concerned about providing that liberty and opportunity to a small number of people. It just seems to go against what this country should be about.
Chuck - Illegal immigrants are not taking jobs from Americans. The jobs that most illegals take are ones that even the poorest American looks down his nose at.
Bruce - Without the internet or access to any real phone service, do you think you would be able to find out the process required to enter another country legally?
By chuck
March 28, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this
I see as usual that poor old 72 cannot have a sane, rational conversation without calling names. Have you ever stopped to consider that people can disagree on subjects? It would be easy to call you an idiot and try to trash you the way that you try to trash me. Face it, you are a pretty easy target. The point is that you don’t have enough common sense to even put forth a rational argument on any topic. Your basic argument is “I’m right, you’re wrong, that’s it.” That may work in your community, but it doesn’t work in the real world where you have to actually back up your position with facts. You cannot refute ANYTHING that I wrote so you call names. How mature you are. Maybe that’s why the democrats can’t seem to win any elections. They (you) have NO IDEAS.
This doesn’t have ANYTHING to do with compassion. As soon as school is out I am making my second trip to Romania to take medical supplies and clothes to an orphanage there. I am taking ove 500 books that I’ve collected to 2 high school English teachers that I met there last year so that their students can have books to read in English. We have groups going to Guatemala, China, Russia, Venezuela, Mexico, Costa Rica, and Belize. We have groups going to Orlando, New York’s Hell’s Kitchen area, and Appalachia. What have you done besides sit on your sorry butt? Maybe give a couple of bucks to United Way? Don’t even think about talking to me about compassion.
This issue is about PRESERVING SOMETHING THAT YOU APPARENTLY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT…THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE. It is what keeps us strong enough to be able to solve SOME of the world’s problems. It’s what gives us the will to try. My Brother-in-law is a first generation American whose parents were born in Mexico and immigrated LEGALLY to the United States. I have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM WITH LEGAL IMMIGRATION. NONE.
What I do have a problem with is the economic devestation that is going to hit this country if we allow this to continue.
1) We MUST be able to control the number of people who come into the country so that they can be assimilated into our country AND way of life. We want them to AMERICANS, not Mexicans living in America. Face it, if they bring THEIR CULTURE to America, what have we accomplished? If their culture is so great, why would they want to come here. If their way of life is so successful what is it they want with America? It is OUR WAY OF LIFE that makes us successful. Assimilation of people from all over the world has been one of the keys to our success. Good Morning America reported yesterday that by 2025 1 in four people living in America will be HISPANIC. Is that necessarily a good thing?
2)We need to control our borders to keep CRIMINALS and TERRORISTS out.
3)We need to control our borders to protect our economy so we can afford to help those in need. 12,000,000 illegals working here 7.2 million AMERICANS out of work. That’s a GOOD thing?
4)We need to enforce OUR LAWS. I am not saying we should lock illegals up, but we should definitely send them back.
Here is the question. If they know the kinds of things to do that make them succesful here, what is to stop them from doing those things at home. We got self-determination through a revolution. If they don’t like the corruption and poor function of their government, they need to change it. They are not here to contribute to our society, they are here to TAKE FROM IT and send it to Mexico and points south. I don’t think that is a good thing.
You asked a question 72, Have I ever gone faster than the speed limit? Yes I have. If I was CAUGHT breaking that law, I would suffer the consequences for that. With immigration, you don’t want ANYONE to be caught. You want everybody to LOOK THE OTHER WAY and ignore it. We have police who patrol our streets to keep me from speeding. Your analogy is that they should turn off the radar guns and pretend that they are reading the paper when I fly past them. That is asinine.
By RF
March 28, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this
Net— HIGH FIVE for the 10:53!! I see it every day in my classroom. The kids think they’ll automatically get a job,car,house, etc. whether the have an education and are willing to work hard or not. Talk about entitlement mentality!
By chuck
March 28, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this
JBM, I can’t believe that as a MINISTER of the Gospel, you justify LYING for the supposed betterment of your child. Don’t ever call me a hypocrite again.
By Whiley
March 28, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this
Jesus Julia, that’s a sickening thing to say.
It is extremely distressing to know there are some people that think like you do, & you don’t even realize what you are really saying.
Who the hell raises their kids to think like this? People really su@#k sometimes. Which is why each & every person in our govt. needs to really make clear where they stand so we can vote them immediately out of office if they are so pro-fetus/ pro-rapists.
By Mara
March 28, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this
So Julia thinks, and I paraphrase here, that “yes, this 16-year old child should be forced to carry the fruits of rape to term. Her health and even the remnants of her childhood are secondary to making sure she is forced to watch her body swell from that of a pubescent child to one of imposed adulthood. Her rights ended when her father forced his sperm into her v**** and created a baby.”
How very…compassionate. Thanks for sharing your opinion.
And FYI - there’re lots of female Ob-gyn’s out there so positing that an abortion provider must necessarily be male is rediculous. Nor is feeling debilitating remorse or shame an integral part of having an abortion.
By Julia
March 28, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this
Whiley,you don’t even realize what you are really saying.
Yes, I do. Choosing life over death under every circumstance. (Yeah, I can see why that makes ME someone who SU@K$ and doesn’t deserve to be in office!)
By Julia
March 28, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this
Mara-there’re lots of female Ob-gyn’s out there so positing that an abortion provider must necessarily be male is rediculous
There are lots of female OB/GYN’s but not lots of female abortionists. To say 97% are male would ge generous from what I’ve researched.
So, you think the innocent human being should be torn limb from limb via abortion because of the crimes of her biological father? To quote you, “How very…compassionate.”
By The72John
March 28, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this
Chuck, has it ever occured to you that I don’t bother to have a rational conversation with you because you aren’t worth it? You are a hypocritical jerk who prattles on about his devotion to a relgion, the tennets of which you almost entirely ignore. You aren’t worth rational debate.
With immigration, you don’t want ANYONE to be caught. You want everybody to LOOK THE OTHER WAY and ignore it.
Did you read anything I wrote? I said that my primary objection to the current climate is the emphasis on treating illegal aliens like hardened criminals who shouldn’t be treated humanely simply because they are here without official sanction. I never said we shouldn’t work to stem the flood of immigrants.
Typically, you read what you want to read and ignore the rest.
By GOB
March 28, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this
Face it, if they bring THEIR CULTURE to America, what have we accomplished?
Well, I would say that for the last 400 years or so, people bringing their cultures with them to this country has built what you call “our way of life.”
12,000,000 illegals working here 7.2 million AMERICANS out of work. That’s a GOOD thing?
There might be 12M illegals in the U.S., but most those that are working are doing so in jobs that Americans (even the unemployed ones) dont want. How many Americans do you see in the Home Depot parking lot at 5am?
Good Morning America reported yesterday that by 2025 1 in four people living in America will be HISPANIC. Is that necessarily a good thing?
Is it a bad thing? It is a simple fact, nothing more or less. Just because we have a larger Hispanic population doesnt mean that the US is going to become the dusty wasteland that is the TV world view of Mexico.
We got self-determination through a revolution. If they don’t like the corruption and poor function of their government, they need to change it.
Yeah, if I simply want to provide a better life for my family, the best way is to overthrow my countries government if i dont like their policies?
By The72John
March 28, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this
3)We need to control our borders to protect our economy so we can afford to help those in need. 12,000,000 illegals working here 7.2 million AMERICANS out of work. That’s a GOOD thing?
Corellation does not equal causality, Chuck. There’s no reason to believe that the unemployment rate would be any different were the 12,000,000 immigrants NOT here. After all, the economy expands to provide services to those 12,000,000, CREATING jobs in addition to the ones those people fill.
And you teach economics?
By Whiley
March 28, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this
Good post Mara, and might I say I’ve never had a male OBGYN. I’d never consider it, unless George Clooney decides to change careers.
Julia, I would probably agree with you if a fetus was a baby. A fetus is much a person as a tadpole is a frog. Or a scrambled egg is a chicken. Or an acorn is a oak tree. A fetus is not a baby, period. And you are correct, you should not hold any office that has the potential to create oppressive & F@#$ed up laws. It’s for the best. But hey if you want to bear the children of a rapist, go right ahead.
By Julia
March 28, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this
Mara-heck I guess neither one of us can spell today!LOL
By GOB
March 28, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this
Julia - What is your position on the war in Iraq? Did/do you support it?
By RF
March 28, 2006 11:54 AM | Link to this
chuck- I have a friend who owns his building construction business. He hires immigrant crews mostly, all of whom must have at least a green card. He quit hiring all American crews because they were doing substandard work and demanded above standard pay. His immigrant crews work hard, fast, and produce quality. He said he’d gladly hire American citizens if they were willing to work to the level he expects for his business. If we just load them up and ship them back, you’d be surprised what a negative impact it would have on our economy. We have WAY too many ‘working poor’ who are willing to stay that way because it’s easy.
I agree we need to secure our borders. Yet another daunting government task that will never be handled well.
By The72John
March 28, 2006 11:55 AM | Link to this
We have groups going to Orlando, New York’s Hell’s Kitchen area, and Appalachia. What have you done besides sit on your sorry butt? Maybe give a couple of bucks to United Way? Don’t even think about talking to me about compassion.
You have no idea what I do with my time, Schmuck…I have more compassion in my little finger than your entire family has in it’s self-righteous, bigoted bodies. Every post you make demonstrates how cold and vicious you actually are. The only “charity” work YOU do involves going places with your church so that you can preach at people who are vulnerable because of poverty or tragedy. I’m sure it makes you feel good about yourself, you sanctimonious a*.
This issue is about PRESERVING SOMETHING THAT YOU APPARENTLY KNOW NOTHING ABOUT…THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE. It is what keeps us strong enough to be able to solve SOME of the world’s problems. It’s what gives us the will to try.
You don’t actually believe this nonsense, do you? What’s more American than giving up everything you own to go somewhere and make a better life? I guess you have forgotten the entire history of our nation. YOUR American “way of life” if the way of uniformity, prejudice and rigid thought.
By Julia
March 28, 2006 11:58 AM | Link to this
GOB-no, I don’t support the war in Iraq. Now that we’re there however, I support our troops and our country.
By Just Being Me
March 28, 2006 11:58 AM | Link to this
I’m trying to figure out at which point I JUSTIFIED lying???? You are so busy trying to start up with me today that you completely overlooked the fact that my underlying question, which was clearly stated, was: “That’s wrong, isn’t it?”
I am clearly acknowledging that lying about your address (or on your taxes, for that matter, or lying to take a sick day) is wrong. As is speeding.
The purpose of my telling that story, exposing my own wrongdoing, is to compare the acts that people commit in desperation to give their children a better life, and to demonstrate that despite how much parents want for their children, they should not break the law or commit other fraudulent acts to obtain it.
Sorry, demon. You can’t get me on this one, but I’m sure if you stick around a little longer, you’ll catch me showing just how fallible I am. Then you can finally prove for once and for all that I AM A FILTHY, DIRTY SINNER!!!!
You’re such an idiot.
By Julia
March 28, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this
Whiley, ok, let’s use the term fetus. So, you see nothing wrong with destroying a fetus (small human life with ten fingers and ten toes and a beating heart) because of the crimes of the father? The rapist goes to jail and the innocent fetus has to pay with it’s life???
I don’t think YOU need to be in office my dear.
By Mara
March 28, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this
Julia - how many limbs does an unformed embryo have?
At 6 weeks it’s still indistiguishable from the embryos of a rabbit or elephant. It still has a tail for heavens sake. It’s “limbs” aren’t even budded out yet. At 8 weeks, it still has no bones. Since most abortions are performed between the 8th and 10th week, I’m not seeing a lot of limb tearing there.
torn limb from limb HA! Propaganda. Sheer propaganda.
By chuck
March 28, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this
I didn’t say that the 12,000,000 CAUSED the unemployment of the 7.2 million. I wonder how many of those 7.2 million would be employed IF we didn’t have 12 million illegals.
Gob, are there no Americans who would do construction work who are out of jobs? The illegals who take those jobs work OFF THE BOOKS for less money. They depress wages and YES, they increase the unemployment and UNDEREMPLOYMENT of Americans. I haven’t seen the studies that give actual numbers but I have heard those studies referred to on GMA and other news programs.
Also, I don’t mind the idea of people maintaining ASPECTS of their home cultures. That is not the problem. The problem comes when people move their culture and language to America in its entirety and fail to adopt the culture of America. We spend billions of dollars dealing with this in education alone. Turn of the century immigrants made sure their children BECAME Americans by making them learn the LANGUAGE AND THE CULTURE. We need Mexicans who become AMERICANS, not Mexicans living in America.
By Chilao
March 28, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this
It still has a tail for heavens sake
A tail? Like a monkey or any other lower animal? GASP
By chuck
March 28, 2006 12:13 PM | Link to this
JBM, YOU SAY IT IS WRONG, BUT YOU DO IT ANYWAY. GREAT EXAMPLE FOR YOUR KIDS AND YOUR CONGREGATION.
By GOB
March 28, 2006 12:32 PM | Link to this
Chuck - You have already admitted that you speed, and that you understand it is wrong. What makes that any different than what JBM is doing? Are all sins equal in the eyes of god, or something like that?
By The72John
March 28, 2006 12:38 PM | Link to this
JBM, YOU SAY IT IS WRONG, BUT YOU DO IT ANYWAY. GREAT EXAMPLE FOR YOUR KIDS AND YOUR CONGREGATION.
Right, because Chuck is so very NON-hypocritical, he gets to lecture other people about moral consistency.
Chuck is also probably not aware that assimilation time into the American culture has differed from ethnic group to ethnic group, taking more or fewer generations depending on a variety of factors, including how much in common the two groups share culturally - for instance the Irish assimilated faster than the Italians - or how similar they are in physical appearance.
By Netbanker
March 28, 2006 12:51 PM | Link to this
I may have liberated a candy bar or two from the local mini-mart hehehehe…who knew that candy bars were being held against their will in mini-marts? Viva la revolucion des candy bars!
By Mara
March 28, 2006 01:07 PM | Link to this
Chilao - have I ever told you how much you crack me up?! LOL!
GOB - I’ve got a great deal of respect for your argument regarding the treatment of illegals. They are people, and they do deserve to be treated decently. I just don’t buy the view that illegal immigration is such an intransigent problem that we can’t do anything about it, so we should just shrug and open our borders. Don’t know if that’s actually your view, but that’s kinda what I’m getting from your posts.
Smiles for JBM and her fight against the insidious rhetoric of…chuckie. LOL! (groan, not again!…)
By Whiley
March 28, 2006 01:12 PM | Link to this
Julia, a fetus is not a baby, so I have absolutely no problem with abortion. (it would be nice if every pregnancy could be wanted & planned) It’s not a baby so it’s not killing anything. It’s not murder. Unless you also consider spermicide killing lol. Then I’m a mass murderer. I side on the life of the woman. ALWAYS. The already born woman. ALWAYS. The already born woman’s other kids. ALWAYS. The already born female that doesn’t want to give birth, no matter how the pregnancy happened. ALWAYS. If you want a uterous owned country, live somewhere else. This is America, where women refuse to be treated like 2nd class citizens owned by their husbands & the government.
By Whiley
March 28, 2006 01:16 PM | Link to this
I think everyone that want’s all these “free” govt. services given to illegals should pay for it themselves. I think all the fetus lovers should pay for all the welfare kids themselves.
See how high & mighty big talkers they are then, when THEY are the ones that have to fund it all.
By chuck
March 28, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this
Mara, your lack of knowledge of the anatomy of a developing baby is astounding for someone who spends so much time advocating for abortion. Arms develop on day 26, legs on day 28 after conception. There is NOT A TAIL at any point during pregnancy (sperm actually have a tail but that is prior to pregnancy). Eyes and ears develop at week 6. The heart is beating and pumping blood between 2 and 3 weeks.
By GOB
March 28, 2006 01:19 PM | Link to this
Mara - After re-reading some of my posts, I can see how the idea of just opening the borders could come across. That is not my view. What I would really like to see put in place are smarter laws. Right now, the laws make it virtually impossible for a poor, uneducated person to immigrate to this country in any reasonable period of time.
I do think we will start to see these laws come into place soon though. Both parties realize what a huge voting block the Hispanic population has potential to be, and will be courting it anyway they can. Their selfish motives might actually translate into some smarter, more reasonable laws, although that might be a bit much to ask of most politicians.
I also think that most US citizens should be a little more appreciative of the life they were born into. What we consider poor, most countries (even most western European ones) would consider either wealthy, or at least middle class.
By kimberly
March 28, 2006 01:21 PM | Link to this
An undocumented immigrant is a POTENTIAL US citizen, not an actual US citizen. Therefore, the US Government gives preferential treatment to the US citizen over the POTENTIAL US citizen.
A fetus is a POTENTIAL citizen, not an actual citizen. When the life and liberty of both are at stake, why shouldn’t a pregnant woman, a ACTUAL citizen, have her right and preference over that of the potential citizen, who is not even a person yet? Why should the actual citizen forego HER rights in favor of a person who doesn’t even exist yet? Why?
Anyone?
By chuck
March 28, 2006 01:27 PM | Link to this
GOB, speeding may or may not be a sin…while it certainly is not mentioned per se in the Bible, it probably is a sin (submit to the authorities that are placed over you for example). When I speed, it is almost always a sin of omission. I look down at the speedometer and notice I am over the limit and slow down.
Thou shalt not bear false witness is one of the BIG 10, and she noted that she knows it is wrong. My challenge to her is to stop committing that sin and do the right thing. Christians are supposed to hold each other accountable. That is one of the reasons that God instituted the church.
By Nikita
March 28, 2006 01:30 PM | Link to this
I have a lot of difficulty sympathizing with the view that an unformed, non-sentient, fully dependent entity which may or may not ever even achieve consciousness takes precedent over a woman who is independent, fully aware, and in the process of living her life. Furthermore, I have trouble relating to people who think that rapists should be able to either rely on the state compelling or compel a woman to bear his child.
Explain, please, Julia.
By Julia
March 28, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this
it’s not killing anything
Obviously your definition of killing is different from mine. I’ve got this crazy notion that killing means ending a life, stopping the brain waves and the beating heart.
At 8 weeks the unborn:
HEARTBEAT- can be heard on office ultra-sonic stethoscope
HEART- has been beating for one month
EKG- electrocadiogram can be done
BRAIN WAVES- were measurable 2 weeks ago
FEELS PAIN- and responds to touch
SUCKS THUMB
GRASPS- instrument placed in his/her palm
SWIMS- with a natural swimmer’s stroke
DEVELOPMENTAL MILESTONES:
Day one- Conception
One week- Attaches to wall of womb
Two weeks- Stops mother’s menstrual period
Three weeks- Heart is beating
Six weeks- Brain waves measurable/ Moves and responds to touch
8 weeks- can listen to heart
2 1/2 months- body completly formed, even fingerprints
3 months- All organ systems functioning
After three months- nothing new develops/ There is only growth in size and maturity
By kimberly
March 28, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this
Christians are supposed to hold each other accountable. That is one of the reasons that God instituted the church.
Whaaaa? What happened to “JUDGE NOT, LEST YE BE JUDGED?”
Repent, Chuck. Seriously. You’re embarrassing yourself.
By Randy K.
March 28, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this
Since the subject is so weak this week. I have a SALUTE. I salute the 167 thousand people who in 2005 lost their lives in foreign countries because they wouldn’t renounce their Christian faith. They have their priorities right. GOD BLESS.
By Zack
March 28, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this
If you think the FDA is out to protect you, you probably think also that the secular media is out to report the news objectively.
I’m not so much in favor of warning labels in the sense that people should know that sugar plus a sedentary lifestyle equals fat, but I’ve heard from Kevin Trudeau that companies are putting things in food to make you hungry and fat and that the FDA isn’t doing anything about it.
Back to last week’s commentary, I saw a commercial over the weekend about a prostate medicine, and the commercial was done in a slightly-lighthearted way.
WHY?????
It’s because men, for the most part, take it. That’s why. Our culture is teaching young ladies that men don’t deserve equal treatment. It’s not right. (Our culture also devalues the act of being ladylike, by the way.)
To the person who tried to say that a fetus wasn’t a human being because he relied on his mom’s body, that’s simply one of the dumbest statements I’ve ever heard. Life begins at conception, not at childbirth. It is no one’s place to interfere with the life cycle once it begins. As I said, a newborn baby can’t provide for himself, either, and we don’t hear the liberals saying that a newborn baby isn’t a life. They’re inconsistent in their own so-called logic.
Yes, a fetus is a human being, no matter what attempts at rationalizing you hear from the left. No woman owns her baby. Understand and remember that. No one owns another human being. No one. Don’t let some promoter of casual sex without the responsibility of parenthood brainwash you into believing her personal agenda about what she wishes the truth were.
By Jack
March 28, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this
“while it certainly is not mentioned per se in the Bible, it probably is a sin” HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! and if it feels good, DO IT.
By lozen
March 28, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this
ha,ha,ha,ha, ha! This is about the funniest thing Chuck’s ever posted on this blog because he describes himself and how he operates to a tee!
I see as usual that poor old 72 cannot have a sane, rational conversation without calling names. Have you ever stopped to consider that people can disagree on subjects? It would be easy to call you an idiot and try to trash you the way that you try to trash me. Face it, you are a pretty easy target. The point is that you don’t have enough common sense to even put forth a rational argument on any topic. Your basic argument is “I’m right, you’re wrong, that’s it.” That may work in your community, but it doesn’t work in the real world where you have to actually back up your position with facts. You cannot refute ANYTHING that I wrote so you call names. How mature you are. Maybe that’s why the democrats can’t seem to win any elections. They (you) have NO IDEAS.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.
By Jack
March 28, 2006 01:39 PM | Link to this
See what you did Julia? That can of worms has spilled all over the place. I knew it wouldn’t be long before Zack and company joined in.
By Zack
March 28, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this
Chuck—Christians are held accountable to the Holy Spirit, not to each other. We’re supposed to encourage one another, yes, but the idea of being held accountable to each other is a function of the church-growth movement, where sound doctrine is tossed aside in an effort to promote church attendance…and the more people who are holding each other accountable—to them—the better, because that means more attendance and probably more money being given to the church.
Kimberly—You are totally wrong. Please see my last post. A fetus is a human being, and there’s no evidence to refute me. It’s time conservatives stopped being so nice to liberals. It’s time we stood up and unapologetically told the truth regardless of who hates the truth and/or us.
Some cheap woman was on “The O’Reilly Factor” last night and said that most people were pro-choice and that a fetus wasn’t a human being. I say she’s cheap because of what she said. It’s not unprecedented by the left, of course. When you have no substance to defend your thesis statements, lying becomes the easiest option. Obviously, someone who condones Holocaust-like murder in the name of “choice” isn’t afraid to lie, either.
My hostility lies not mainly with them but with those who know better and don’t speak out, because if you don’t speak out, you’re an accessory to the crime.
By Jack
March 28, 2006 01:42 PM | Link to this
Hi Kimberly. Sweet Thing. :)
By Zack
March 28, 2006 01:43 PM | Link to this
Kimberly—“Just not…” is taken out of context. It doesn’t mean we’re supposed to be spectators to evil and say, “I can’t judge.” Not at all.
If you’d like to talk to me more about this, you can write me at clausentowashington@yahoo.com
By The72John
March 28, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this
but I’ve heard from Kevin Trudeau that companies are putting things in food to make you hungry and fat and that the FDA isn’t doing anything about it.
bahahahaha…Zack thinks that an infomercial actor is a legitmiate source of information. Seriously, this explains a LOT.
*Back to last week’s commentary, I saw a commercial over the weekend about a prostate medicine, and the commercial was done in a slightly-lighthearted way.
WHY?????
It’s because men, for the most part, take it. That’s why. Our culture is teaching young ladies that men don’t deserve equal treatment. It’s not right. (Our culture also devalues the act of being ladylike, by the way.)*
Huh? So…a humorous commercial carries a subversive message that men don’t deserve equal treatment? Irrational, much, Zack?
To the person who tried to say that a fetus wasn’t a human being because he relied on his mom’s body, that’s simply one of the dumbest statements I’ve ever heard. Life begins at conception, not at childbirth. It is no one’s place to interfere with the life cycle once it begins. As I said, a newborn baby can’t provide for himself, either, and we don’t hear the liberals saying that a newborn baby isn’t a life. They’re inconsistent in their own so-called logic.
This is one of the dumbest statements you’ve ever heard? Do you read your own posts? Hello, bad analogies! My name’s Zack! Let’s be friends…
By GOB
March 28, 2006 01:52 PM | Link to this
on the whole judging thing, just an interesting fact. The story in the bible about you who are without sin, cast the first stone didnt appear until the middle ages. The earliest copies do not include this story, but somewhere in the middle ages it appears.
That doesnt really have anything to do with this discussion or the topic, but a couple of posts triggered my mind…
Now back to our regularly scheduled programming…
By kimberly
March 28, 2006 01:55 PM | Link to this
Hey Jack, Mr. Feeeelsgoooood. {;->
Zack, I said the fetus is a potential, not an actual CITIZEN. This IS true. (The argument of when “life” begins is unwinnable by either side, and we will never agree.) But CITIZENSHIP is definable, and a fetus does not have it. THEREFORE, as the LAW applies, the rights of the CITIZEN must take precedence over that of the NON-citizen, when an either/or case exists. BTW, a woman always has a right to say YES to her pregnancy, unless you succeed in saying the woman’s rights don’t matter, in which case the WOMAN is no longer a citizen, and no longer a person, but a f—-ing baby machine. That IS what you want, isn’t it? The thought of that is the only thing that keeps your woman-hating soul going, isn’t it?
By lozen
March 28, 2006 01:59 PM | Link to this
Who in their right mind would want to force a 16 year old who was raped by her father to carry and birth the result of that? Yes, let’s punish her not once but twice. Make her carry the sicko’s baby! Force her to have it! Force her to be reminded of the rape every day as her body balloons, as she throws up with morning sickness. Force her against her will if she doesn’t want to have it. Give her no choice at all. She’s already learned she has no choice in whether she wants to have sex or not so please, let’s show her she has no choice in carrying this pregnancy to term!
By Nikita
March 28, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this
Julia and Zack, you didn’t actually respond to my post. Please do so, eschewing “because I say so” logic and name-calling. If possible.
By chuck
March 28, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this
Zack, You need to read Matthew 18:15-18. Then we’ll talk.
By Just Being Me
March 28, 2006 02:05 PM | Link to this
Hey demon, no need to use all caps. I can read just fine. You’re the one that had the trouble reading my post.
As for your asinine remark, the only comment I would say was already said by Gob: Chuck - You have already admitted that you speed, and that you understand it is wrong. What makes that any different than what JBM is doing? Are all sins equal in the eyes of god, or something like that?
No, wait. I know. You don’t speed in front of your children, so that’s different, right?
By kimberly
March 28, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this
Chuck & Zack, why don’t BOTH you haters read Matthew 23: 27 & 28. These are the verses I think of each & every single time you post.
By chuck
March 28, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this
Some other verses for you to take a look at Zack.
Matt. 12:36; Rom. 2:16; 14:2; 1 Cor. 3:10-15; 4:5; 2 Cor. 5:10), as well as to key Christians in our life (John 13:34 Gal. 6:1-2; Philip. 2:4; Heb. 10:23-24; James 5:16
Proverbs 11:14, 15:22, 24:6; 27:17; 2 Corinthians 12:19-13:6; Galatians 6: 1-10; Ephesians 5:21; Colossians 3:9-10;
By GOB
March 28, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this
Uh-oh…Looks like we might have a right-wing bible fight brewing…Cover your head to avoid flying scriptures.
By chuck
March 28, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this
Nikita, you asked for an answer to your post. The developing baby does NOT take precedence over the mother. It has the SAME rights as the mother (or would in a perfect world). Also, in a perfect world, there would be a REAL penalty for Rape. The most logical one would be PHYSICAL castration.
By Chilao
March 28, 2006 02:16 PM | Link to this
Mara - we all need humor, especially here on W2W. Don’t know about the tail, but know I have a tailbone. I “let”(passed on it myself) my g/f take Anatomy and Physiology in JC, I stuck with the easy sciences, Meteorology and Botany(since I was working in a greenhouse anyway) LOL
mid Tuesday on abortion, is that a record?
By Netbanker
March 28, 2006 02:19 PM | Link to this
It’s time conservatives stopped being so nice to liberals HAHAHAHAHAHAHA…ROFLMAO…hehehehehe..snort..cough, cough, wheeze. OMG…I think I’m going to hurt myself for laughing so hard about that statement! You can’t stop doing something you’ve never done in the first place. (still giggling)
By The72John
March 28, 2006 02:24 PM | Link to this
Looks like we might have a right-wing bible fight brewing
I ROFL’d.
In this corner, weighing in at 250 pounds of sheer fighting dogma, wielding a large wooden beam of pure judgement, it’s….CHUuuuuuck “Get-off-the-cross-someone-needs-the-wood” Beater!
And…in this corner, weighing in at 250 pounds of misogynistic manure, swinging a heavy bible full of archaic ideas, it’s….ZAAAAAccckt “trying-to-get-my-sentence-reduced-by-faking-good-behavior” BANGER!
By Chilao
March 28, 2006 02:25 PM | Link to this
Looks like we might have a right-wing bible fight brewing
and how much are tickets to The Stoning?
Now that is entertainment. You mean, all free, right here? Gotta love the ajc. LOL
By chuck
March 28, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this
The difference JBM is that I don’t set out to speed and try to justify it to my children. I try not to speed and sometimes through inattention I happen to speed. If they were to notice, I would apologize to them and ask them to help me see to it that I don’t do it again.
What you do is BLATANTLY LIE about your address to gain an advantage over people who RIGHTFULLY live in that district and pay the taxes that produce those good schools. I assume that you understand that is also fraud and theft. You know it is wrong and have NO PLAN to repent and make restitution. I wouldn’t even bring it up, but based on your previous posts to me I know how important your faith is to you and hate to see you harm your relationship with Christ.
By RF
March 28, 2006 02:36 PM | Link to this
We also pay taxes to the state, and who pays more of a local system’s budget?? THE STATE does. My salary is over 90% paid by the state, so if a parent wants to move a child to another district, where’s the harm?? It all comes out of the state budget anyway!
By Netbanker
March 28, 2006 02:37 PM | Link to this
See, GOB, Religion IS dangerous. I’ll just sit here on the sidelines of that one.
I’ll take it that no one in the abortion wars here actually read the story in the link I posted from the woman who was an actual victim of sexual assault? And do you Christian people ever really THINK about what your position does to REAL people like that 16 year old? Have you no imagination to even attempt to understand what she must be feeling? May God have mercy on your souls because there is nothing merciful or compasionate about what you’d have her endure.
Thanks for the compliment ealier RF. I see those same attitudes in many stores where the clerks treat me like sh it because I expect them to actually do their job and help me. When I voiced my displeasure at a McDonald’s over the weekend another customer started to defend them and asked what I knew about it. Sadly for him I did work at a McDonald’s for 2 years as a teen and let him know that I wasn’t just pontificating, but was speaking from experience. On a lighter note…did you have a good weekend? Make it Amsterdam? After a really rough week it was a quiet weekend at home. Besides this coming weekend is going to be very busy…Friday night a neighbor is being ordained so we’re going to the service and celebration after, Saturday is GMAC 25th Anniversary concert, and Sunday my parents arrive for a couple of days on their ‘snowbird’ migration back North.
By Mara
March 28, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this
Well chuck, Julia - I could sit here and argue about fetal development, but I choose not to. Instead of using the oh-so-persuasive cut-n-paste technique favored by certain individuals whom I shall not name, I will merely provide a link to a layman friendly website that has been kind enough to translate the medical jargon used in the “Medical Encylopedia” at the U.S. Department of Medicine into a “Fetal Development for Dummies” kind of format. Anyone who chooses can pop on over and see who is spinning and who is telling the truth. Here ya go - http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/genpsyfetaldev.html
By Julia
March 28, 2006 02:38 PM | Link to this
First of all, I wasn’t the one who opened that can Jack. ;)
Second of all, nit-picking someone over who’s sins are the worst and who’s the “better” Christian is just plain wrong in my opinion.
And last but not least, the unborn baby is NOT a monster, nor is he or she a rapist, nor have they committed any crime. The death penalty seems beyond harsh.
By kimberly
March 28, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this
The bible verses I offered translate as follows: “You’re HYPCRITES, you make me sick, so SHUT THE F—- UP!”
By Bruce
March 28, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this
In answer to your question JBM, “that’s wrong - isn’t it?” I would say yes. My children do not attend school in the county where I pay school taxes. I also have to pay tuition in the county they do attend school. You could say I am paying twice but in order to provide the opportunity for a better education I pay that price. Can I afford it, just barely, is it worth it, yes. I would not have the nerve to do what you are doing, but I have thought about it very, very hard a time or two.
By Julia
March 28, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this
One more thing, Chuck, for you to throw stones at JBM because she’s not perfect is really getting to me. Neither you nor I nor anyone on the face of this earth is perfect or without sin. The only one to accomplish this was Jesus Christ.
I believe Jesus said it best when He said “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”.
Loving correction is another thing-but that’s NOT what you’re doing.
By Netbanker
March 28, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this
Also, in a perfect world, there would be a REAL penalty for Rape. The most logical one would be PHYSICAL castration. So much for that turn the other cheek thing, huh? Odd thing this Christianity. So much espousing of violence, forcing of opinions, judging, berating and such for a religion supposedly built on LOVE. With that concept of LOVE you can have it all to yourselves!
By Julia
March 28, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this
*May God have mercy on your souls because there is nothing merciful or compasionate about what you’d have her endure. *
That’s what I would say about making her go through an abortion and live with that for the rest of her life.
By chuck
March 28, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this
And in this corner, weighing in at “72” pounds of limp- wristed, pompousity, held to the ground only by the amount of feces bottled up in his anal-retentive, hot air bloated body it’s 72”I-wish I was normal like Chuck”joooooohn”.
By FatMoose
March 28, 2006 02:52 PM | Link to this
Julia,
Been lurking a little today and wanted to commend you on how you handle yourself and your beliefs on here.
By The72John
March 28, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this
I believe Jesus said it best when He said “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”.
Chuck doesn’t actually believe this applies to him. Neither does love they neighbor, or judge not, lest you be judged.
Much like the captain in Pirates of the Carribean, chuckie figures that these are really just “guidelines” that don’t apply to him, and are certainly not to be bothered with when doing so might challenge his preconceived notions in any way.
For instance, the ACTUAL translation of “Love thy neighbor”, as it has been divinely revealed to the prophet Chuck, is “Love thy neighbor so long as he is exactly as thee. If thy neighbor not be the same, then thou art free to hate him”.
By Just Being Me
March 28, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this
When I speed, it is almost always a sin of omission.
Almost doesn’t mean a thing to God. Neither does that omission/comission nonsense that man threw in there to differentiate.
And as for the BIG 10, surely you’re not implying that one of the 10 Commandments bear heavier weight than the commandment to obey the laws of the land?
By Mara
March 28, 2006 02:58 PM | Link to this
Net - I did read the article about the woman who was beaten and raped. It often amazes me that in her case, as well as the 16-year old girls, how far some people would go to impose their opinions onto those who might hold a different view. And how angry and hateful they can get when their opinions are rejected. We know that opinion isn’t necessarily “truth” but some people still insist that what they think is fact…is fact.
I’ve already called the office of my state rep. and begged them to oppose SB 123 and SB 429. Nice folks. Doubt they’ll listen.
By The72John
March 28, 2006 02:59 PM | Link to this
A) Make your own joke, Chuck. Or are you not creative enough to do that?
B) Learn to spell “pomposity”
C) My wrist can kick your wrist’s a* any day of the week.
D) If I were anything like you, I’d do what you should have done years ago, and kill myself.
By chuck
March 28, 2006 03:00 PM | Link to this
NetB, the turn-the-other-cheek philosophy is indeed a good one. That does not mean that the one who hits me in chops won’t suffer natural and/or legal consequences. The perfect example comes in our relationship with our children. When my children are disobedient, we discuss what they did, I tell them what the consequences for the disobedience will be, I forgive them and then enforce those consequences. Are you now saying that there should be no consequences for RAPE?!?!
By chuck
March 28, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this
Nice avoidance JBM. Doesn’t change the facts.
By Mara
March 28, 2006 03:06 PM | Link to this
Julia - I may be prying here, but what makes you think that having an abortion is anything like being raped? Why do you believe that every woman who’s ever had an abortion is weighted down with guilt, remorse, and black depression?
By The72John
March 28, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this
Are you now saying that there should be no consequences for RAPE?!?!
Translation of Chuckese: “I am too stupid to understand that Netbanker is making a facetious comment in regards to my espousal of extremely violent measures when I claim to belong to a religion that abhors violence.”
By Julia
March 28, 2006 03:08 PM | Link to this
Thank you FatMoose! I appreciate that.
By chuck
March 28, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this
Parody From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In contemporary usage, parody is a form of satire that imitates another work of art in order to ridicule it. It can also be used to poke affectionate fun at the work in question. Parody exists in all art media, including literature, music, and cinema. Cultural movements can also be parodied. Such works are also sometimes colloquially referred to as spoofs.
By Archie
March 28, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this
“By the way, Schmuck, how many times have YOU exceeded the speed limit? That’s a LAW, isn’t it?”
72John, I used that same reasoning on a conservative friend of mine when he started talking about how precious the law is, and he had no answer because he broke the law all the time by speeding. As a christian myself I must say that many of us don’t really understand what we’re saying. The Bible does say follow the laws of the land but if we did that people like myself(black people) would not have the rights we have today. Clearly, to JBM and Chuck we have to make some decisions about which laws to follow literally. Chuck sounds a little like that conservative christian friend of mine who I had to put in check with some of the things he said. My friend is “off-the-chain” conservative and at times has no rationale to what he says.
By Julia
March 28, 2006 03:12 PM | Link to this
And how angry and hateful they can get when their opinions are rejected.
I don’t think I’ve been either of those things. Do you really think that?
By The72John
March 28, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this
Your problem is that you just aren’t very good at parody, Chuck. If you had been clever or funny it would have been one thing, but…ya just aren’t.
By chuck
March 28, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this
ex·ag·ger·ate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-zj-rt) v. ex·ag·ger·at·ed, ex·ag·ger·at·ing, ex·ag·ger·ates v. tr. To represent as greater than is actually the case; overstate: exaggerate the size of the enemy force; exaggerated his own role in the episode.
hy·per·bo·le ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-pûrb-l) n. A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.
By Julia
March 28, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this
what makes you think that having an abortion is anything like being raped? Why do you believe that every woman who’s ever had an abortion is weighted down with guilt, remorse, and black depression?
By listening to women who’ve been there. By hearing the amount of pain they went through. By hearing women compare it to their own rapes. Listening to their first hand experiences.
By FatMoose
March 28, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this
Mara,
but what makes you think that having an abortion is anything like being raped?
I did not read any correlation bw the two besides her stating that adding another negative action (abortion) to a 16yos experience is doing more damage.
So I put to you: Are you saying that having an abortion is an uplifting and positive action in ones life?
By Just Being Me
March 28, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this
The difference JBM is that I don’t set out to speed and try to justify it to my children.
You really can’t read, huh? Never did I say that I do any wrong and then “justify it to my child.” That’s just ridiculous. In fact, I never tried to justify anything. For a split second, I was on the same side of the argument as you are. I stated, indirectly, that if it’s wrong for me to register my child in another school district because I want a better life for her - which it is - then it must also be wrong for immigrants to come here illegally, even if they are seeking a better life for their children. Instead of taking the point, you decide that this is a great opportunity to point fingers.
Heck, if anybody’s going to talk about justifying, it sure as heck shouldn’t be you. You justify every wrong you do. You call names and justify it (whereas I admit fault and apologize). You judge and justify. You berate and ridicule and justify it. You point fingers and throw stones and justify it. You drive above the speed limit (by omission, of course) and justify it. Whatever wrong you do is okay because the Bible says xyz. Or it’s okay because it’s not as bad as what JBM did. Or it’s okay because it’s a sin of omission not one of commission. Everything you do is justified with one scripture or another.
You’re just the perfect christian.
By FatMoose
March 28, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this
And how angry and hateful they can get when their opinions are rejected.
I don’t think I’ve been either of those things. Do you really think that?
I was going to back you on this as well - the above is one heck of a general statement that reflects on everyone on here today but you and NetB.
By Randy K.
March 28, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this
When do you know you have lost the debate or discussion. When you start calling the other person names(like John72 does). Such a weak character.
By RF
March 28, 2006 03:22 PM | Link to this
Net- Christianity just sounds LOVELY, doesn’t it?? Julia’s the only one who seems remotely happy with it!
I didn’t get “to town” over the weekend. Had a very, very busy week (on top of everything else, I started an online Master’s program a few weeks ago). I ended up hanging out Saturday night with some old friends I don’t see very often. Just didn’t have the energy to dress and be out and about. Starting spring with a campout this weekend and then it’s spring break for me next week!! YAY!!
By Just Being Me
March 28, 2006 03:26 PM | Link to this
Clearly, to JBM and Chuck we have to make some decisions about which laws to follow literally.
Actually, Archie, I believe that all laws of the land are to be followed literally. I don’t agree with all the laws, but I think we should follow them regardless.
If I had no money to feed my child, and she was at risk of starving to death, and all the agencies that provide food were closed (or otherwise inaccessible), I might steal food or use some sort of trickery to get food for her.
It would be just as wrong as stealing a fur coat or a bottle of perfume, and I would be subject to punishment, and I would deserve that punishment.
Just wanted to make it clear that I don’t think we should pick and choose which laws to follow or under which circumstances we should follow them.
The striking difference between satan (chuck) and I, is that he’s perfect and I’m not.
By chuck
March 28, 2006 03:28 PM | Link to this
So I assume you are going down tomorrow to pay tuition to that school district and give them your proper address?
By RF
March 28, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this
Not to justify JBM’s choices, but I have no doubt I’d do the same thing if I felt there were no other option. I think it’s easy to judge someone’s actions until we find ourselves in similar situations. I can at least say I’d do the same because I KNOW I would for my children’s sake. Seems simple to me. Doesn’t make it right, but who among us would deny our children, even if it meant breaking a rule?
By Julia
March 28, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this
RF & Net-don’t judge the tree because of a few bad apples that fall off. When you go to the store and buy a bag of apples and get home and see that there’s a worm hole in one do you stop eating/buying apples forever? Do you say that “all apples are bad”? No, of course not.
(I hope you understand what I’m trying to say.)
By chuck
March 28, 2006 03:39 PM | Link to this
I didn’t say it was okay to speed, btw. The Bible does teach that in all matters, God looks on the heart. I can’t believe that you are EQUATING an accidental lead foot, with an intentional lie, but that’s something you will have to live with.
I have to admit that having an opportunity to take a little dig at you was the motivation there, when it should have been accountability. After somebody calls you Satan 30 or 40 times you kind of don’t really care how they feel about things. So I guess that was an intentional sin to that I will have to repent of. And yes, it’s just as bad as your lie.
By Mara
March 28, 2006 03:44 PM | Link to this
FM - it may not be an uplifting experience but if you do it early enough it certainly is no worse that getting your annual exam.
Perhaps it’s because I don’t frequent anti-abortion groups and websites that I don’t see the huge amount of angst Julia implies is part and parcel of the abortion procedure. I’ve met just as many women who feel nothing but unabashed relief (the only real guilt they felt was for not feeling as guilty as they were told they would…) as I have those who do feel guilt and depression.
By Mara
March 28, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this
WOW! Chuck, do you mean that God will be the one judging, not you or Zack or Pat Robertson?! Do you honestly mean that GOD will judge the quality of the person and their soul, NOT the religious right? That GOD will be able to tell the good folk from the bad folk?
Is that why y’all are so angy at the homosexuals, feminists, and libruls? LOL! Just pokin’ ya with a sharp stick, chuck. Just killing time til quittin’ time.
By Archie
March 28, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this
JBM I don’t believe in following all the laws literally. I do speed sometimes and yes I deserve a ticket. There are certain laws on the books that don’t make sense based on how people are living at this time. Laws of the land are not perfect which is why some laws are taken off the books. I follow the speed limit most of the time and I haven’t got a speeding ticket in almost 20 years but sometimes I speed no doubt about it. I think people break certain laws all the time and that’s why I said as christians we don’t always understand what we’re saying. I wish you,JBM and Chuck, well, but I know y’all are going to disagree just as I disagree with my conservative friend. I can tell you right now JBM you would love Chuck compared to my friend. Also let’s remember Jesus healed people on the Sabbath which was against the law at the time.
By Just Being Me
March 28, 2006 03:56 PM | Link to this
Clearly, to JBM and Chuck we have to make some decisions about which laws to follow literally.
Actually, Archie, I believe that all laws of the land are to be followed literally. I don’t agree with all the laws, but I think we should follow them regardless.
If I had no money to feed my child, and she was at risk of starving to death, and all the agencies that provide food were closed (or otherwise inaccessible), I might steal food or use some sort of trickery to get food for her.
It would be just as wrong as stealing a fur coat or a bottle of perfume, and I would be subject to punishment, and I would deserve that punishment.
Just wanted to make it clear that I don’t think we should pick and choose which laws to follow or under which circumstances we should follow them.
The striking difference between satan (chuck) and I, is that he’s perfect and I’m not.
By RF
March 28, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this
So if I accidentally drive too fast, because I didn’t intentionally speed, it isn’t as wrong as intentionally telling a lie. Interesting thought, but I haven’t read that sin is judged by intent. We’re splitting hairs there that just aren’t meant to be split. Sin is sin, right?
Julia- I don’t throw away the apples, but it’s hard to keep buying them after you’ve gotten a mouth full of worm-kinda leaves a bad taste for a while. I love God, I’m just not so sure about some of the worms he’s got in the apples down here, you know? LOL
By FatMoose
March 28, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this
Perhaps it’s because I don’t frequent anti-abortion groups and websites that I don’t see the huge amount of angst Julia implies is part and parcel of the abortion procedure. I’ve met just as many women who feel nothing but unabashed relief (the only real guilt they felt was for not feeling as guilty as they were told they would…) as I have those who do feel guilt and depression.
Well, I have seen all the patients that my dad had (psychiatrist) who had abortions, and they experienced long term trauma.
I have never herad of ANYONE comparing it to a pap smear. That sounds pretty exagerated…
Minus the fanatics, wear an “I chose abortion” t-shirt for a month to your normal functions/friends and such places - even those that believe in choice will look down on you.
Abortion, at the least, is the concept of “lesser of two evils,” but whether it actually IS the lesser, I am unsure. But the more I hear the reasons avocated by you pro-choicers, the less I find myself in that camp.
By Netbanker
March 28, 2006 04:04 PM | Link to this
Wait! That would be the AGMC concert, not GMAC.
By Just Being Me
March 28, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this
I didn’t just start calling you satan out of the clear blue. One day, I believe it was the day that many of us were having an exciting debate on what could have been a heated subject. If I recall correctly, there were two clear sides. No one was calling names. No one was ridiculing anyone’s ideas, however opposed to those ideas they may have been. No one was offending, berating, or putting anyone down. We were just disagreeing in an educated, mature, collected fashion.
Then came you. Within moments, you disrupted the entire discussion, wreaking havoc and causing mayhem.
Instantaneously, it hit me. (No sarcasm, here, I’m serious). You were here, in my opinion, to sow seeds of discord. To create confusion. To hurt people. To throw stones. To disrupt, to destroy the calm, steal the peace, and kill the spirit of the discussion.
That is the same mission that satan has, and anyone who does those things repeatedly, anyone who takes pleasure in taking jabs, anyone whose mission is to upset peace is, in my opinion, is in cohorts with the devil.
And, to answer your question, no. I am not going to the school tomorrow to tell them my “real” address. To do that would be a direct threat to my child’s education and mental health. Is that wrong of me? Of course it is. Here’s a stone for you. When you reach perfection, please feel free to toss it.
By Netbanker
March 28, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this
Julia…no one would MAKE her get the abortion, but my issue with the pro-life crowd is that they would completely remove this as an option. YOU would FORCE her to live with this reminder of the brutality and sexual violence that her own father perpetrated against her. YOU are the one forcing her to relive that horror every single day…you really believe that would be better for her as a human and less harsh psychologically than to terminate the pregnancy? Aborting won’t change what happened to her, but it could certainly help her health more quickly.
By Chilao
March 28, 2006 04:20 PM | Link to this
While we are on the subect of how righteous The Law is, can I point out that everything done in Nazi Germany was 100-percent legal under German law, and then most recently, that The Law in Afghanistan related to the guy who converted to Christianity, another example of The Law.
Just something I always like to point out when concepts like The Law are being discussed. LOL
By RF
March 28, 2006 04:20 PM | Link to this
Net- what concert is AGMC? My brain is on overload today, so acronyms aren’t translating!!
By Julia
March 28, 2006 04:20 PM | Link to this
I love God, I’m just not so sure about some of the worms he’s got in the apples down here, you know? LOL
RF-It’s ok, I understand. But as long as the devil tries to break apart the church there will always be worms somewhere in various apples. The trick is to see the worm for what it is-apart from the apple. ;)
By Just Being Me
March 28, 2006 04:25 PM | Link to this
Thanks, RF. You and I both know that I’m doing the wrong thing. But, I’m glad you understand where I’m coming from.
For those of you that may not (except satan), when I gained custody of my daughter, she was in 7th grade, and read on a 3rd grade level. The only mathematical functions she could complete were addition, multiplication, and subtraction (and she had trouble with subtraction). She couldn’t divide. She couldn’t do anything with a fraction. She wasn’t familiar with decimal points, geometry, basic algebraic functions, or complex word problems. She was on her way to becoming functionally illiterate.
She had been raised in an environment where staying home to watch her siblings was far more important than going to school, and in a school district where passing the poor, black kids along was far more important than actually teaching them. Her teachers, obviously, had no parental support and probably felt that if the parents didn’t care, neither did they. She was passed from grade to grade, never mastering any concepts taught.
I enrolled her immediately in two different learning centers (one was on weekends) to bring her up to grade level, and in less than a year, she was on grade level in math according to three different tests.
She still struggles, especially in math. She does not like to work hard, and will spend as little time on homework as she can get away with. She has a difficult time concentrating, and gets very frustrated when she can’t grasp a concept. What’s worse is that she wasn’t raised to believe that education is important, so she has a hard time putting her all into it.
What can be worse than that? Try sending a child like that to an APS school that is 96% black (as all but one of the high schools are) and mostly low-income. My child is in an environment where teachers don’t expect her to do well, and where students take education for a joke. Heck, with all this standardized testing, many of the teachers take it for a joke too. The students are below grade level, so she feels that this is acceptable. They fight everyday, sometimes a gun is found in a locker. The girls have two and three children, and it’s no big deal.
Meanwhile, I’m at home telling her that this is NOT the norm, yet this is all she’s ever seen.
What could be worse? One day, she comes home with a note saying that she failed Algebra I, and failed the EOCT miserably. I wasn’t surprised, since she had already failed every unit test in Algebra I. She had barely passed Language Arts with a D, and was still writing on 5th grade level (but, she doesn’t believe she needs help with her writing because she “write just like everybody else in my class”). What did surprise me was when she came home with a new Algebra II book. Yes. She failed Algebra I, and was placed in Algebra II.
She received glowing comments from her LA teacher, despite the fact that her writing was horrible, and she just barely passed.
I have seen it all with APS:
spelling lists with misspelled words. letters to the parents with grammatical errors. failing children (including my own) sent to the next grade. my 8th grader receiving an A on an essay that looks like a 3rd grader wrote it.
And, I am tired of it. Furthermore, I don’t have the time to wait on APS to work out the kinks. I don’t have time to wait on a new superintendent who may or may not make a difference. I don’t have time to wait for a new HS principal who will put a stop to “passing” students who deserve to stay behind. I don’t have the time to risk my child’s one chance at an education.
Does any of this justify my fraudulently enrolling her in a better school just next door where she’ll get a decent education? Nope.
If I had it to do over again, would I do the same thing? Yep.
Here’s a stone. Feel free to toss it. I’ll take a stone for my child.
By RF
March 28, 2006 04:30 PM | Link to this
Julia- persistent one, aren’t ya? LOL I’ve been slack about finding a church. I guess I got discouraged after the last few I tried that were close to home turned out to be a bad fit. I just can’t bring myself to drive across town for church. I’m too small town I suppose—if it ain’t here, I don’t need it! LOL
By Whiley
March 28, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this
I don’t care what the fetus lovers say, a fetus is not a baby, the woman decides who/what/when/where they create a baby. That’s much to much power for a woman to have, the fetus lovers hate that. Controlling women is what it’s all about, not saving “babies”.
If the fetus lovers REALLY cared about babies, they’d all have 10 adopted already born thrown away kids right now. They don’t. PROOF the fetus lovers are nutjobs. What nutjobs say doesn’t matter for S@#$@#. Now if they try to force their nutjob views on the rest of us, then we have a problem.
NONE OF YOU FETUS LOVERS care about REAL LIVE BORN BABIES!
What a joke the fetus lovers are.
(OK why am I getting into this debate again? lol) In the near future all fetus lovers in government will BE GONE. Till then we still have to listen to their stupid crap. lol
By Julia
March 28, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this
YOU are the one forcing her to relive that horror every single day
Net-We’re only talking about carrying the baby for nine months and then the baby can be adopted. And yes, it’s a better alternative then a lifetime of knowing that you’d had your own child’s life ended. It’s always better to give life than to take life. (In my opinion anyway.)
By RF
March 28, 2006 04:36 PM | Link to this
JBM- here’s a stick. When the stones start flying, just hit a few homeruns!! LOL
I left a school system I had worked in for years to go work in another so my boys could have a better chance. Would I do it again? YEP, and if our middle school doesn’t get it together next year, I’ll be changing again. You do what you have to for your kids.
By Just Being Me
March 28, 2006 04:37 PM | Link to this
An abortion with no complications (all the way up to 24 weeks) can indeed be just as easy for a woman as having a pap smear, if not easier (with the help of anesthesia).
That is NOT an exaggeration.
By Jack
March 28, 2006 04:38 PM | Link to this
We can’t throw at you JBM. We are not without.
By Just Being Me
March 28, 2006 04:38 PM | Link to this
An abortion with no complications (all the way up to 24 weeks) can indeed be just as easy for a woman as having a pap smear, if not easier (with the help of anesthesia).
That is NOT an exaggeration.
By Just Being Me
March 28, 2006 04:42 PM | Link to this
One other thing. It’s pretty safe to assume that a woman who has an abortion and goes to see a psychiatrist, is having a hard time dealing with that abortion. Therefore, if you hang around a psychiatrist’s office, you’re not likely to find too many women who had abortions and are relieved, experiencing no guilt or other negative feelings.
The ones who feel good about their decision probably aren’t at a psych’s office discussing it.
By Jack
March 28, 2006 04:46 PM | Link to this
JBM. Stop defending yourself. No need.
By Julia
March 28, 2006 04:49 PM | Link to this
I just can’t bring myself to drive across town for church.
RF-come on, look what Christ endured for YOU! :)
I hope you keep looking. But even if you don’t-you know the act of going to church isn’t what saves you, it’s a personal relationship with Christ (one-on-one). (I’m sure you know that though.)
Just Being Me-I understand what you did and I think you did what you had to do to get your child the best education. I certainly wouldn’t fault you for that. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again-you sound like a really great mother!
By Netbanker
March 28, 2006 04:51 PM | Link to this
Julia…I do understand completely what you were saying about apples and worms. (To digress for a moment just because that is the stream of consciousness way my mind works sometime…What is it about apples anyway? Eve gave Adam ‘The apple’, comparisons to bad apples, ‘how do you like them apples?’ The other fruits must be feeling very left out)
I grew up Lutheran Missouri Synod and Catholic in a family of strong religious faith. The one lesson that I really have taken to heart is that every person’s relationship with God is a personal one. For me that makes it easier to keep my nose out of other people’s relationship with God although it also means that when I do run into those who won’t/don’t I just can’t help but point out that it isn’t up to them to judge or pontificate.
I no longer follow an organized religion because I see so much harm, hate, vitriol, and misunderstanding. I know this isn’t true of most churches. I’m sure my own perspective has been greatly influenced by being born gay and hearing the message of the church about how horrible I supposedly am even as I was praised by my church family for being kind, helpful, caring, understanding, reliable. It’s hard to reconcile how one tiny facet of who you are and over which you have no active control can suddenly negate you in the eyes of the church.
RF…sounds like you had a nice weekend. Some of the best times are hanging with long time (I’m learning not to use OLD because it’s starting to become a statement on age) friends, especially the ones you don’t see often, but when you’re together it seems like it was yesterday.
Pack warm for the camping unless the weather is going to change. I think it’s about time we dusted off our tent for a camping trip. We haven’t been for a couple of years and it’s something I grew up doing and really enjoy for a weekend. For some reason that admission seems to surprise many people I know. I thought the look on my friends’ faces at my birthday about 6 years ago was priceless when the big box from my partner turned out to be a tent. Then it went to a whole new level when they realized that I wasn’t faking my excitement just to be nice. For most of them Holiday Inn IS roughing it.
By Julia
March 28, 2006 04:52 PM | Link to this
Hi Whiley!!! :)
I hope you’re having a great day.
By Julia
March 28, 2006 04:53 PM | Link to this
Does that mean the opposite of what you call a “fetus lover” is a “fetus hater”??? Just wondering.
By Whiley
March 28, 2006 04:53 PM | Link to this
Julia, there’s more to giving birth than a little cramp you fetus lover, female hater.
Women ARE RELIEVED after an abortion. How many of these “abortion scarred” women are religious nutjobs? are in religious nutjob families that pour on the guilt?
I love how the fetus lovers don’t give a flying flip about how women suffer because of being pregnant, like it’s no big deal walk in the park what are you complaining for? Like all women just love it. Oh me oh my pregnancy is so lovely.
Can you tell i’m a little irritated today? There’s some freaky woman hating people out there. REALLY p** me off.
By RF
March 28, 2006 04:55 PM | Link to this
dangit, Julia, you’re just as good as my mother! She could shoot down any argument I came up with!!LOL Boy, your son isn’t going to get away with a thing, is he??
Toodles, folks!
By Just Being Me
March 28, 2006 04:56 PM | Link to this
Thanks, Julia. I appreciate that. And thanks, Jack.
RF, isn’t it amazing what you’ll do for your child?
By Julia
March 28, 2006 04:57 PM | Link to this
An abortion with no complications (all the way up to 24 weeks) can indeed be just as easy for a woman as having a pap smear, if not easier (with the help of anesthesia).
Sure, if you’re knocked out/put to sleep verses being awake while he’s pulling out body parts one at a time. (Called the D&E method.) I forgot about the possibility of being knocked out for the procedure. Sorry.
By Whiley
March 28, 2006 04:58 PM | Link to this
Julia I was having a great day till the fetus lovers started chanting their fetus loving, woman hating crap.
Then the church/cult people started up again.
By Monica
March 28, 2006 04:59 PM | Link to this
Mara, I can’t answer your question posed this moring without making the folowing statement: I’m either a monster or a hypocrit. I could say that the girl should carry the baby to term and then put it up for adoption, and I am a monster for making anyone go through that.
Or, I can say that in the cases of rape, abortion is okay, and I’m a hypocrit. If my argument against abortion is that I view it as taking a life, then it’s taking a life regardless of the circumstances of conception. So, I’m in a lose, lose situation.
Julia, great job today!
I too, am a “happy Christian.” I can’t remember who posed that question earlier.
Okay, have to run as my son is telling me that the dog is eating something he shouldn’t… be back tomorrow!
By Julia
March 28, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this
Net-I’m sorry for your bad experiences. I wish I could give you a big hug right now.
By kimberly
March 28, 2006 05:04 PM | Link to this
Whiley, yes, I too find it hard to believe these people when they try to say they’re NOT women-haters (and gay haters and not-my-religion haters.) They claim the love of God, but I don’t see it, I don’t feel it, and I’m not buying it. As a woman, I see, and have experienced an awful lot of woman-hate in many forms. Anyone who says the potential person’s rights completely negate those of the woman, IS A WOMAN HATER. Period. Chuck, Zack, and the rest…. perhaps their mothers refused to suckle them… I don’t know. But I know a woman hater when I hear his or her self-righteous ramblings, that’s for sure!
By Whiley
March 28, 2006 05:04 PM | Link to this
Monica, you aren’t a monster or a hypocrite if you let the girl decide herself.
Monica, you aren’t a monster or a hypocrite if you don’t choose abortion for yourself.(or change your mind & do)
The point is, each women decides herself. What is so darn awful about that?
By Netbanker
March 28, 2006 05:07 PM | Link to this
RF - That’s Atlanta Gay Mens Chorus. Which is definitely not to be confused with GMAC (General Motors Acceptance Corporation). Happy Spring Breaking next week! I’ll working away and feeling just a tad jealous of your well deserved time off. Please feel free to remind me of all hard parts of your job and why you should have a spring break.
FM - while I understand your perspective from seeing your Dad’s patients you wouldn’t see all the women who didn’t need counseling so that experience would seem to skew your impression of the psychological effects. I agree with you that in many cases the abortion is the lesser of evils. Since I’m not a woman nor heterosexual an unintended pregnancy isn’t an issue I’ll ever have to deal with any more personally than having listened to friends who were facing that very decision. Of the 3 women I know for sure who have had abortions they all have looked back with regret (especially my best friend who at 37 recently had a hysterectomy for medical reasons), but all 3 have also said that at that time it was the right decision. None of them have been incapacitated or needed counseling over having had the procedure.
By Nikita
March 28, 2006 05:15 PM | Link to this
Allrighty, then. On the recent comments on abortion:
Chuck, the rights of the fetus are not equal to those of the woman when the woman is legally required to supply her body to grow it to full-term and make arrangements for its long-term care. They are superior. Keep in mind as well that any such plans require legal consideration of the father, who could after all be the woman’s father or blood relative or rapist.
Julia & co, you’re missing a few very important distinctions. No one is making anyone obtain an abortion — those who do have made a decision which they need to consider the ramifications of. So rape is not analagous.
Furthermore, guilt is a logical feeling if abortion goes against your beliefs, if you feel you cannot have a child because you are unable to provide for one, or if you have been relentless hounded, lied to, and harassed for making the decision to put your needs ahead of a fetus which you had no intention of conceiving.
And finally, “Victims and Victors” is an activist work, correct? Its goal is to support your thesis. So, naturally, it’s not going to represent women of the other ilk. At the same time, I have known a number of women who have had abortions and they all felt it was the best decision.
By online directory main
March 29, 2006 04:10 AM | Link to this
hello! http://www.dirare.com/Sweden/ online directory. About DIRare, Search in Business Category, Yellowpages search. From online directory .
By candide
March 29, 2006 07:01 AM | Link to this
THE MOST URGENT WARNING LABEL
By CANDIDE
March 29, 2006 07:02 AM | Link to this
THE MOST URGENTLY NEEDED WARNING LABEL:
On the cover of every Bible for sale: warning! reading the Bible can destroy the brain and encourage irrational behavior.
By Bruce
March 29, 2006 08:16 AM | Link to this
JBM, Who can fault a parent for wanting the best for their children? Don’t give up God will provide a way. You and your child are in my prayers.
By Whiley
March 29, 2006 08:43 AM | Link to this
“If you give a man a fish, he eats for a day. If you give a man religion, he starves to death praying for a fish.”
By Julia
March 29, 2006 08:56 AM | Link to this
“If you give a man a fish, he eats for a day. If you give a man religion, he starves to death praying for a fish.”
I guess this would be true if you were praying to a God that did not exist.
I know my God is a living God because He DOES answer prayer and perform miracles.
By Whiley
March 29, 2006 09:10 AM | Link to this
I’m sorry Julia, you’ve been fed a big load of crap. Religion is the biggest scam of them all. But if it MAKES you feel better, that’s fine.
Just don’t try to make laws based on fairy tales.
By Archie
March 29, 2006 09:11 AM | Link to this
Since the blog discussion was about speeding and sin yesterday,well here in South Carolina we have a lieutenant governor that was doing 101 miles/hour and he was not given a ticket or a warning. Andre Bauer,lieutenant governor of South Carolina also was clocked going 77 miles per hour in a 65 mile/hr zone. In my opinion people here are picking and choosing which law to follow and enforce. There was a clear violation of the law and yet the man was sent on his way. It’s front page news here. It seems there’s always an exception made for certain people and it’s just aggravating to me. Mr. Bauer lied about it when asked initially by the press but when the video tape surfaced he said he had forgotten about those incidents. He used the term “lead foot” in describing himself. My point is he is justifying breaking a law that’t not convenient but maybe he doesn’t deserve Hades. Also my point is laws need to be examined and this is where I side with the atheists,laws should not be based on the Bible because as christians we don’t do a good job.
By GOB
March 29, 2006 09:22 AM | Link to this
Whiley - While I may agree with some of the things you put on this blog, I must say that the manner in which you attempt to make your points comes across as hostile and totally negates any point you were trying to make.
With a few exceptions, most people on this blog are respectful of each other, so I dont think a more civil discourse would be too much to ask.
By Renee
March 29, 2006 09:23 AM | Link to this
Laws should NOT be based on religion. Religion is very subjective and diverse in this country, so how do you pick which one to use for laws?
Laws should be made and based upon a person’s life, property, safety and freedom. So basically if it doesn’t affect someone’s life, property, safety or personal freedom, it shouldn’t be against the law. IMO
By Chilao
March 29, 2006 09:25 AM | Link to this
In Alabama, legislators are legally exempt from speeding laws since they might be rushing to and from Montgomery. If a state trooper pulls one over, all they have to do is show their legislature identification.
I dated a State Prosecutor for two years in another state, if she got pulled over, she just showed her driver’s license, and opposite that was her State AG Office ID. She ALWAYS got “thank you, ma’am, that’s all”, (no ticket).
By Renee
March 29, 2006 09:32 AM | Link to this
Good comment GOB!
By Chilao
March 29, 2006 09:32 AM | Link to this
I firmly believe guilt is self-created. So if you believe abortion is wrong(for whatever reasons), and then have one, it stands to reason you may need therapy later. DUH. Anyone I have known who had one, was not in therapy as a result, and several look back at it as the best decision they could have made.
Needless to say, I have never had one. LOL
By Whiley
March 29, 2006 09:44 AM | Link to this
GOB I’m sorry, remember I type aggressively. I speak better in person, & much softer. When I type I don’t use proper English either. lol My spelling is usually good, well, only because of spell checker.
By Julia
March 29, 2006 09:57 AM | Link to this
I’m sorry Julia, you’ve been fed a big load of crap. Religion is the biggest scam of them all. But if it MAKES you feel better, that’s fine.Just don’t try to make laws based on fairy tales.
Whiley, I’m sorry you’ve never experienced anything spiritual and do not know God or Jesus. But just because you do not know them does not mean that I don’t either.
And for something to be a “scam” doesn’t someone have to benefit from the scam and someone else has to be deceived into giving something? What’s the scam then? You don’t HAVE TO tithe or pay any money. (Phoney baloney TV “evangelists” who want money money money do NOT count nor do they represent the Christian community.)
And lastly, what laws am I trying to make based on religion? I don’t recall ever bringing religion into law discussions before.
Fairy tales are made up stories that never come true. My God and Savior are alive and well and answer prayer. The bible is the original world history book. The archaelogical (sp?) evidence supports the bible completely.
If you choose not to believe that’s your choice but you can’t tell me who I know and who I don’t know. You aren’t equipped with that knowledge.
I respect your right to your opinions (all of them)- I only ask that you respect my right to mine. (And I promise no one’s going to ever drag you to church kicking and screaming.)
By Jack
March 29, 2006 09:58 AM | Link to this
Abortion is basically a religious arguement You cannot change any one’s mind which ever side they are on. Can we discuss something else. Pulllleeeeessse!
By Chilao
March 29, 2006 09:58 AM | Link to this
spell checker: I no the sky is blew.
actually there is a long poem showing all the things that passed spellchecker and it grossly mispelled, for the intended word at least.
doe ewe tango?
By Chilao
March 29, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this
or was that: due ewe tango?
By Julia
March 29, 2006 10:01 AM | Link to this
Yes, GOB, very well said.
By GOB
March 29, 2006 10:06 AM | Link to this
The bible is the original world history book. The archaelogical (sp?) evidence supports the bible completely.
Julia - When you say this, do you mean that the archeological evidence supports the old testament (genesis included) as an accurate history, or are you talking more about new testament places and churches?
By Archie
March 29, 2006 10:06 AM | Link to this
Chilao thanks for response. Chilao or anyone, I ask is it safe as Renee says for someone to be driving a 101 mph on a highway? If laws are designed for safety why should certain people have these privileges when they themselves wrote the laws or are going to prosecute someone else for violating the law. How important can the law be when we have all these exceptions? If I can pay a 100 dollar fine then Mr or Miss Important can pay that same fine.
By Mara
March 29, 2006 10:07 AM | Link to this
or perhaps “dew yew tango”?
By Julia
March 29, 2006 10:10 AM | Link to this
Although I disagree that abortion is a “religious” discussion I certainly agree with Jack in that we need a new topic.
By Jack
March 29, 2006 10:15 AM | Link to this
Julia you did a good job yesterday. You intentionally stepped in it knowing what would happen and argued your points quite eloquently.
By Julia
March 29, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this
GOB-I was referring to archaeological evidence found throughout the Middle East that refer to people and places in both the Old & New Testaments.
I don’t have the specifics in front of me but will try to see what I can come up with for you if you like.
By Renee
March 29, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this
Maybe I was misinterpreted, or I misstated my point. It is not safe for anyone to drive 101 mph. Not unless they are on their own privately owned road, where nobody else travels, and they don’t put my life, or anyone elses in jeopardy.
By GOB
March 29, 2006 10:33 AM | Link to this
Julia - The reason I was asking is because i don’t think you can use archeological evidence to support something that is purely spiritual. I view much of the “scientific” support of religion to be so partisan that it cant be taken seriously.
It is essentially the same as me saying that because i can go to Greece and see Mount Olympus, it somehow validates Greek Mythology.
By Mara
March 29, 2006 10:34 AM | Link to this
Nice discussion on immigration reform yesterday. Today the press is touting a supposedly “balanced” reform bill. Republican Arlen Specter, a couple of his buds, and all the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have endorsed this proposal for a “comprehensive” package that includes possible citizenship:
“The path to citizenship laid out by the Specter bill wouldn’t be easy. It would take 11 years, a clean record, a steady job, payment of a $2,000 fine and back taxes, and knowledge of English and civics. It would nearly double the number of Border Patrol agents, add resources for detaining illegal immigrants and deporting them more quickly, and expand state and local enforcement of immigration laws. It would create a system to verify workers’ identities and impose tougher punishments on employers who defied it.”
Sounds reasonable, doesn’t it? Now, does anyone remember way back in the ‘80’s when Reagan gave amnesty to 7-8 million illegal aliens? Remember what was promised then? Increased border security, tougher action against those hiring illegals, citizenship requirements including fines, clean legal record, employment, etc etc. All the items contained in Specters bill are pretty much the same points from Reagans. What’s that adage that Dubya mangled so badly? Oh, yeah. “Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again.” ? Personally, I’ll believe the enforcement part when I see it. Until then, despite the hype, I’m looking at this as just another Republican amnesty.
By Bruce
March 29, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this
Archie, I know what you mean, I travel to Atlanta from time to time and have seen on almost every occasion State Patrol go around me. I am driving 70 to 75 mph and they pass me like I am sitting still. No lights, no siren. I asked a friend of my about it one time and he told me they were going to training class in Forsyth and didn’t want to be late.
Another pet peeve of mine is car insurance. State requires you to have it but will not regulate how much you can be charged for it. I sometimes wonder how many lawmakers that signed that bill had interest in insurance companies.
By Julia
March 29, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this
Thank you Jack (and Monica).
Jack-you’re always a gentleman.
By Netbanker
March 29, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this
Julia…thanks for the sentiment yesterday, but I wouldn’t call my exerience bad. It was just eye-opening to the darker side of organized religion and human nature. So long as you’re viewed as part of the group all is well. The primary thing that drove me away from organized religion is the message of homosexuality as a sin. This is a pronouncement from people who have never walked a mile in a gay person’s shoes. They’ve decided that sexual orientation is an active choice made by gay people even though they never thought about their own sexual orientation and attractions. Gay people are in a unique position since our wiring isn’t the accepted norm We are stuck growing up without role models of lasting relationships, to grow up without role models period for most of us, to consider long and hard what it means to not be able meet the accepted norm without lying, to really consider the potential affects of being honest which can mean being excommunicated from one’s religious family, biological family, affect on employment, affect on purchasing a home, inability to provide health care, inability to guarantee access to the hospital, etc. While it hasn’t been proved scientifically yet that sexual orientation is genetic or biological I have yet to meet a single gay person who hasn’t ALWAYS had same sex attractions and ALWAYS admitted that even when living as a heterosexual they knew they were living a lie.
To be accepted by the church we are required to either live a lie or to deny ourselves the love and support of a relationship because of some idiotic idea that it’s not a sin to BE gay just to have a same gender relationship and sex. In a religion whose central tennet is supposed to be LOVE we are vilified because of who we LOVE and are told that we must deny ouselves that intimate emotional bond with another. What I seriously wonder about is when it’s scientifically proved that being gay isn’t a choice anymore than being born a hermaphrodite is what will the church’s response be? What will society’s response be in terms of access to civil marriage?
RF…despite all the reality checks on participating in organized religion that I’ve just written I would urge you to find a church if only for your boys. I firmly believe that having a religious upbringing is important if only to establish a point of reference for comparison to other religious beliefs. My best friend is half Japanese/half American mut. She grew up in a family that didn’t practice any religion and has expressed that as a regret after attending many a Christmas Midnight Mass with my family. There were also other benefits such as participating in Youth Group and Youth Choir. I had experiences that I wouldn’t have otherwise and I know my parents were comfortable having us go on overnight trips, to summer camp for several weeks, or out for social events that they probably wouldn’t have if they’d been available outside of the church family.
By Chilao
March 29, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this
It is essentially the same as me saying that because i can go to Greece and see Mount Olympus, it somehow validates Greek Mythology.
Thank you GOB, did not know how to express that. Of course there was a place called UR, Caldees, Babylon, a guy named Abraham even, and even Jesus. And that means?
By Archie
March 29, 2006 10:52 AM | Link to this
You were fine Renee. I just didn’t write it correctly. Yes,Bruce I wonder about the conflict of interest myself. Once again you were fine Renee. I just didn’t write it correctly because I agree with your definition of how laws should come about. We the people should really ask how much privilege is reasonable for certain important people. How important is it for you to be at a meeting only 10 minutes late?
By Mara
March 29, 2006 11:03 AM | Link to this
Julia - The archaelogical evidence supports the bible completely
People and places in Homer’s “The Illiad” and his “Odyssey” are also completely supported by archeological and historical records. I guess that means that those books, as well as the gods represented there-in, are also valid historical texts. All hail the Olympian Gods!! (hah, heh, heh!) How about the Nordic pantheon? Their existance is supported by the Norse mythology. How about the Native American Great Father? The Aztec gods? They all have temples, holy places, or monuments that are historically and archeologically verifiable. These gods have at least as much evidence for their existance as your god does. There is no proof Julia, there is only faith and conjecture.
And once again I’d like to point out that despite the widely accepted idea that non-christians have obviously never had a spiritually experience, I’m here to say that usually the reason we aren’t christians is that we have had spiritual experiences that either challenge or directly contradict items in the Bible. If your religion makes you happy, bully for you. But don’t for a minute think that those of us who don’t share your belief are somehow lacking in spirituality. Some of us even have more spirituality than many of the so-called “faithful”.
By Julia
March 29, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this
I guess it means you believe the historical parts of the bible but not the spiritual. You believe parts of it but not all of it.
I choose to believe all of it-mostly because of personal first-hand experiences.
By FatMoose
March 29, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this
NetB, FM - while I understand your perspective from seeing your Dad’s patients you wouldn’t see all the women who didn’t need counseling so that experience would seem to skew your impression of the psychological effects.
At the LEAST, I was showing that it is not in any case simalar to a pap smear - for if it was, I would have seen those patients as well. I find that position isane.
In reality it proves that this is always a psychological risk and never a situation is happy to have come about.
Given those parameters, the discussion of abortion - whatever ones personal agenda is - does need to continue (in general) to be explored.
If another route presents itself that is not as invasive as abortion or maybe prevents the need of one totally (think being sterile EXCEPT when you take a pill/injection right before you want to concieve); it is hard for me to see abortion continueing to be a perminent “right.”
{and Whiley, the only use simalar to “fetus lover” is “n**r lover” and think you should revise your labeling of people in that manner - it presents the same crassness and insiniates you are a “fetus hater” ans that you avocate to be a “fetus hater” is admirable.}
By Bruce
March 29, 2006 11:11 AM | Link to this
I know this isn’t Friday but I couldn’t wait.
A West Texas cowboy was herding his herd in a remote pasture when suddenly a brand-new BMW advanced out of a dust cloud towards him.
The driver, a young man in a Brioni suit, Gucci shoes, Ray Ban sunglasses and YSL tie, leans out the window and asks the cowboy, “If I tell you exactly how many cows and calves you have in your herd, will you give me a calf?”
The cowboy looks at the man, obviously a yuppie, then looks at his peacefully grazing herd and calmly answers, “Sure, why not?
The yuppie parks his car, whips out his Dell notebook computer, connects it to his AT&T cell phone, and surfs to a NASA page on the Internet, where he calls up a GPS satellite navigation system to get an exact fix on his location which he then feeds to another NASA satellite that scans the area in an ultra-high-resolution photo. The young man then opens the digital photo in Adobe Photoshop and exports it to an image processing facility in Hamburg, Germany. Within seconds, he receives an email on his Palm Pilot that the image has been processed and the data stored. He then accesses a MS-SQL database through an ODBC connected Excel spreadsheet with email on his Blackberry and, after a few minutes, receives a response. Finally, he prints out a full-color, 150-page report on his hi-tech, miniaturized HP LaserJet printer and finally turns to the cowboy and says, “You have exactly 1586 cows and calves.”
“That’s right. Well, I guess you can take one of my calves,” says the cowboy. He watches the young man select one of the animals and looks on amused as the young man stuffs it into the trunk of his car.
Then the cowboy says to the young man, “Hey, if I can tell you exactly what your business is, will you give me back my calf?”
The young man thinks about it for a second and then says, “Okay, why not?”
“You’re a consultant for the National Democratic Party” says the cowboy.
“Wow! That’s correct,” says the yuppie, “but how did you guess that?”
“No guessing required.” answered the cowboy. “You showed up here even though nobody called you; you want to get paid for an answer I already knew, to a question I never asked; and you don’t know anything about my business…….. Now give me back my dog.”
By Renee
March 29, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this
LOL Bruce, good one!!
By GOB
March 29, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this
I guess it means you believe the historical parts of the bible but not the spiritual. You believe parts of it but not all of it
I don’t think that it is truly possible to distinguish between the two in any meaningful way. In the historical context, yes I believe that the Egyptians existed and had slaves, and that Babylon existed and held many Hebrews as slaves. The problem is that all of these historical parts of the bible are tied to spiritual events, which makes them inseparable.
Also, not to be nosy, but what kind of personal first-hand experience could make biblical stories more true? Noah? Moses? Even Paul?
I really am curious as to that, and am not trying to come across as confrontational.
By Chilao
March 29, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this
“You’re a consultant for the National Democratic Party” says the cowboy.
Wow, I heard that as GOP instead. Must be the company I keep. LMAO
By Jack
March 29, 2006 11:20 AM | Link to this
Good one Bruce.
By Julia
March 29, 2006 11:25 AM | Link to this
we have had spiritual experiences that either challenge or directly contradict items in the Bible
So, you’ve had spiritual experiences? With which spirits exactly? I’m curious. Becuase not all spirits are from God.
By Brian Curtis
March 29, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this
Lots of myths mention real places. Mount Olympus is a great example.
-
Mara, nothing will really be done about immigration because corporations (who are, after all, running our government) are making money off them. It’s all political posturing as a gear-up to election season.
Not that I have any idea what to do about immigration, either… except to note that our existing policy has been working the best of any immigration policy in world history, and the ‘guest worker’ stuff Bush wants to copy from Europe hasn’t exactly worked out too well for them.
-
Julia: Your beliefs are your choice, and I respect that. As long as you don’t try to get your personal beliefs enshrined in law, or use them to pass judgment on others, we can all believe what we want and get along.
-
FM: Abortion is sometimes a minor procedure, sometimes a traumatic one… what of it? I had foot surgery a few years back, and it destroyed some nerves in my foot. Two of my toes are now “dead.” Boo-hoo. I’m not happy about it, but I’m certainly not feeling guilty either. It was necessary, I had it done, I move on.
Other people have more trouble coping with a medical crisis, and of course mine was trivial compared to, say, a heart valve implant or triple bypass. But some folks bounce back and others are so shaken by it that their lives are changed forever. That’s life.
And will someone please let me know just as soon as the planet starts running low on humans? Because I’ve promised that, when that happens, I’ll immediately switch to believing that zygotes are suddenly rare and precious, to be protected at all costs, including at the expense of the rights and health of others.
By Julia
March 29, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this
GOB-The problem is that all of these historical parts of the bible are tied to spiritual events, which makes them inseparable.
You sort of made my point for me with that statement.
Also, not to be nosy, but what kind of personal first-hand experience could make biblical stories more true? Noah? Moses? Even Paul?
I didn’t mean to inply that I had first-hand experience with the books of the bible. I’d have to be pretty old to have been around for some of those! LOL!!!
I was talking about personal spiritual experiences.
By kimberly
March 29, 2006 11:34 AM | Link to this
If you read historical accounts of the life and teachings of Christ (the ones the Italian guys in pointy hats allowed to be included in their great text), then it is quite clear that Christ was not a bigot. So why are so many of “his followers” such judgmental, intolerant, finger-pointing, un-loving, exclusionary BIGOTS? Is it any wonder we don’t go to church anymore? It’s not our Creator we’ve rejected, people! Get a clue.
By Brian Curtis
March 29, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this
Kimberly: Good point! Plenty of people love God or Jesus but want nothing to do with Christianity.
Rejecting the church doesn’t necessarily mean rejecting faith.
By Chilao
March 29, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this
I heard of a spirit when I was little, a local had converted to Christianity, and then some evil spirit came and attacked that person in the night, for converting, and the newly-converted had to call on a stronger spirit to help him fight off the bad spirit. Think it was later used in storytelling to indicate converting was the best thing, since it obviously upset the bad spirits so. and when the evil spirits are upset, you know you are on to something good.
or SOMETHING like that.
I think the bad spirit’s name was Totamana (I’ll have to google that, must be online by now)
By Mara
March 29, 2006 11:46 AM | Link to this
Julia - my own spirit of course. And if your god created everything, how can anything not come from him. Even your dark demigod, Lucifer, is of god in that God created him. Are you saying that Lucifer is a creator too? I was under the impression that he could only corrupt, not create.
as an aside, am I the only one who has pondered with amusement the acceptance of Lucifer as the bringer of death, destruction, and darkness when his name actually interprets to “Light-bearer” and “bringer of the Dawn”? I find that so ironic…
By Jack
March 29, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this
Church is in your heart.
By RF
March 29, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this
The best spirits are Jack Daniels and some of the better Russian and Canadian spirits. Oh wait, we weren’t talking about those spirits, were we?? Well, all I know is I’ve seen God after a little communing with those spirits, you know what I mean?? wink,wink!
By GOB
March 29, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this
*GOB-The problem is that all of these historical parts of the bible are tied to spiritual events, which makes them inseparable.
You sort of made my point for me with that statement.*
Julia - The point I was making was that you cant use historical people or places to prove something spiritual. They are inseparable in the bible because the bible is not trying to be historically accurate. It’s purpose is to win converts. That is why I question that value and validity of using the bible as a true historical reference.
I dont have the first problem with your beliefs, and you seem like someone who is trying to live the way the Jesus actually instructs. I am just curious as to the basis for what people believe. I have meet way too many people who have very strong beliefs about something, but when you ask them why, they cant tell you.
By The72John
March 29, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this
Organized religion is a curse on civilization. It emphasizes our differences rather than our similarities, casts right and wrong in black and white, divides people into groups of “Good” and “Bad” based on arbitrary criteria that often have nothing to do with the character of the people so divided, encourages war and violence, places “faith” above reason and logic, and devalues science in favor of superstition.
For every marvel that religion has provided us, for every magnificent piece of architecture, for every b-minor Mass, for every Mother Theresa, there are two evils. There are wars, all in the name of religion. There are murders, all in the name of religion. There are cultures that have been obliterated, all in the name of religion.
And why? Because in our quest to find meaning, we’ve settled for the lowest common denominator. People are judgemental and narrow and hate and fear that which is different, so we assume that God is the same. We ascribe to God the same petty qualities that we have. Instead of searching for true spirituality, we’ve settled for dogma, for condemnation, for easy paths to the spiritual.
By Julia
March 29, 2006 11:49 AM | Link to this
And will someone please let me know just as soon as the planet starts running low on humans?
So, this is a good reason to eliminate a few of those pesky human beings? How about the handicapped? What about the poor? Shall we eliminate those for the good of society?
You know that when you’re pregnant and find out the (baby) has a handicap they give you the option of abortion? My babysitter’s sister was told the baby would have Down’s Syndrome. However, the baby was born perfectly healthy. If she’d listened to the doctor the baby would not be here today. There are so many cases just like this.
They make it seem as if anything less than a “perfect” baby is acceptable to our human race and should be eliminated before birth. What message does that send to all of the handicapped people in the world? That they have less of a right to life than you or me?
By Mara
March 29, 2006 11:54 AM | Link to this
Brian Curtis - I dunno the answer either. While there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with the legislation, the record on enforcement is woefully inadequate.
Bruce - funny, funny, funny!! LOL!
Kimberly - speaking of the pointy hatted arbitors of holiness…did you happen to catch the History Channel program “Banned from the Bible”? Amazing.
By RF
March 29, 2006 11:57 AM | Link to this
Church is in your heart.
excellent point Jack!
By Julia
March 29, 2006 11:58 AM | Link to this
Mara-going to lunch now but will get back with you this afternoon.
By Whiley
March 29, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this
One of my main beefs with the bible is the whole creating of the earth in a week thing. What a bunch of cockie-poo. I can understand why people centuries ago could believe that BS, but now???? When it’s been PROVEN that our earth is billions of years old.
By Brian Curtis
March 29, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this
Julia: Eliminating human beings? Of course not! Who’s talking about human beings? We’re talking about abortion here, which affects zygotes and fetuses, not people.
Now, some of these might eventually, given the right conditions, grow into human beings… but I don’t save up bushels of acorns in case I lose a tree. There’s plenty to go around, and the squirrels can have theirs.
By kimberly
March 29, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this
I LOVE the History Channel! I’ll have to look for the reruns. The History Channel always reminds me how evil human beings can be, and why I must NEVER EVER trust other human beings (especially rich, white, Christian, legislator types) to make decisions about MY life!
Haha…Pontificate all you want, oh self-righteous, preacher-thumpers. Your track record SUCKS, and we have documented history to prove it!
By FatMoose
March 29, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this
FM: Abortion is sometimes a minor procedure, sometimes a traumatic one… what of it?
Just as a point to show the fundie side of pro-choice: With the proceedure you had, as with all proceedures, you, by law, had to be informed of the risks.
When people tried to legistlate that same access to info regarding abortion - pro-choicers (which I am still currently one) called it a tactic. Where as the reality is that somegirl that could be on the blog today may go in expecting a proceedure that is simalar to a pap smear bc of the ignorance spouted - and end up one of my dad’s patients.
Tell boohoo to the women that find that everything was not removed and therefore have rotting fetus parts in their womb (know two women that this occured with) - or that have great bouts of depression - or that cannot have a child again.
Your flipant “boohoo” is evidence that you do not truely regard the situation as seriously as it is - prochoice or not. Anyone as dismissive as most on here has as much tunnel vision as the fundies.
By Just Being Me
March 29, 2006 12:16 PM | Link to this
Okay, I’m not really “here” today… just scanned through a little bit to see what I’ve missed. Two quick points:
Mara, Lucifer is not evil. Lucifer is best known for being the angel of worship, which is why his name means “bearer of light.” Most educated Christians differentiate between Lucifer and satan. satan is who Lucifer became when he “fell” from grace and decided that he wanted to be all powerful. Many secular people refer to satan as Lucifer, but that’s not accurate.
Another point: Anyone who has not had a pap smear and an abortion cannot refute whether or not having one is a similar experience to having another. I’m sure everyone will agree that having an abortion is a different procedure; but in terms of what a woman feels, an uncomplicated abortion is not much unlike a pap smear.
By FatMoose
March 29, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this
One of my main beefs with the bible is the whole creating of the earth in a week thing.
Why could it not have taken a week to setup and devise? God hits the start button and all the natural laws begin? And given god is outside of time - it gets pretty moot anyways - which simpletons may ask “what do you mean outside of time?” And I answer, well light is outside of time…and god is light… Too easy;)
In my view this can encompass all of science, including evolution.
By Brian Curtis
March 29, 2006 12:24 PM | Link to this
There needn’t be any conflict between science and religious faith… unless you try to give religion unwarranted credibility in science and other areas.
By FatMoose
March 29, 2006 12:27 PM | Link to this
Eliminating human beings? Of course not! Who’s talking about human beings? We’re talking about abortion here, which affects zygotes and fetuses, not people.
To truely be OK with this premise, I find I would have to be OK in thinking that if you never existed; there would be no loss: To me, you, or the world - I see NO evidence that supports that level of unimportance.
Otherwise death would not be such an issue as an adult - for an adult is just a large collection of cells with a neural network alowing it the ability to fool itself into thinking it is important.
By Whiley
March 29, 2006 12:33 PM | Link to this
I repeat, it’s been proven that the earth is MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH older than the bible says. And what about the cavemen & dinosaurs? If the bible is the end all be all & knows everything, why doesn’t it discuss it?
The bible seems to have remembered everything a snake in a garden said word for word, but nothing specific about the cavemen & dinosaurs? And that silly story about Adam & Eve, please people get a grip. Eve ate an apple & that’s why childbirth is painful???lol
By Whiley
March 29, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this
So God can do all this fantasic stuff with a push of a button, create earth, the animals, cells, water, whatever. God has the ability, but just can’t seem to work out that hurricane problem, tornados, earthquakes, floods, disease, the common cold. And God wants to constantly test us, even killed his own kid (you’d think he’d have the power to not need that?) it’s a scam. lol
By RF
March 29, 2006 12:42 PM | Link to this
for an adult is just a large collection of cells with a neural network alowing it the ability to fool itself into thinking it is important.
I didn’t know we had switched to talking about the president!
By Mara
March 29, 2006 12:47 PM | Link to this
FM - do you have actual first-hand experience as to what an abortion feels like or what runs through your mind before, during, and after the procedure? You call my description “ignorance” but rebut with only anecdotal evidence collected, I assume, from your fathers psychiatric office. Somegirl may indeed have a traumatic abortion but there’s just as good a chance that she won’t. The fact is that you are making sweeping statements implying that all women should expect to have some kind of horrifying, debilitating and painful procedure.
To me, that is ignorant.
By Mara
March 29, 2006 12:50 PM | Link to this
RF - that my friend, is one of the best descriptions of this president I have ever seen (except for miserable failure, of course) HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
JBM - I did not know that about ol’ Lucy-fer. I’m glad I learned something today. :^)
By Brian Curtis
March 29, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this
Good one, RF!
By Just Being Me
March 29, 2006 12:57 PM | Link to this
Mara, remember our little talk!! :-)
By chuck
March 29, 2006 01:02 PM | Link to this
Archaeological discoveries verify the historical reliability of the Old and New Testaments.
When compared to other religious books, the Bible is unique in that it is the oldest, as testified by the places, people, titles, and events mentioned in the Bible; and the language and literary formats used to compose the Bible.
Many scholars today question the validity of Biblical accounts, supposedly based on the findings of archaeology. When the “discrepancies” are examined in detail, however it is found that the problems lie with the archaeology (i.e. misinterpretation of evidence, lack of evidence, or poor scholarship) and not with the Bible.
How can archaeology prove helpful to someone seeking for truth to the basic questions about life?
The discoveries of archaeology can be helpful in removing doubts that a person might have about the historical trustworthiness of the Bible. The miracles described, as well as the spiritual message, must be accepted on faith, which is the basis of our relationship with God. When the truth of Scripture is challenged by skeptics, archaeology can be used to demonstrate that the people, places, and events of the Bible are real.
What archaeological discovery would you point to as the most convincing evidence for the Bible being God’s Word?
Any one discovery can be explained away as coincidence, or an alternative interpretation can be given to disassociate it from the Bible. It is the weight of a myriad of discoveries that demonstrates the Bible to be the Word of God.
These discoveries fall into three categories:
Archaeological evidence demonstrates the historical and cultural accuracy of the Bible.
The Bible’s message of a loving Creator God who interacts in the affairs of mankind and has provided a means of salvation stands in sharp contrast to the pagan fertility religions of the ancient world as, revealed by archaeology.
Archaeological findings demonstrate that the Biblical prophets accurately predicted events hundreds of years before they occurred — something that lies beyond the capability of mere men.
Evidence and further information on this topic:
Archaeology and the Bible Associates for Biblical Research Answers About Religions of the World Author: Bryant G. Wood, Ph.D. of Associates for Biblical Research, as quoted in Areopagus Proclamation, Vol. 13, No. 4, January 2003.
Bryant G. Wood, Ph.D., is Director of Associates for Biblical Research and editor of Bible & Spade journal. He is adjunct professor at a number of educational institutions. He presently continues extensive archaeological field work. He and his wife Faith live in Harrisburg, PA. Dr. Wood has served as an AIIA Resource Associate since March of 1997.
Text copyright © 2003, 2004, AIIA Institute, All Rights Reserved - except as noted on attached “Usage and Copyright” page that grants ChristianAnswers.Net users generous rights for putting this page to work in their homes, personal witnessing, churches and schools.
By FatMoose
March 29, 2006 01:02 PM | Link to this
So God can do all this fantasic stuff with a push of a button, create earth, the animals, cells, water, whatever. God has the ability, but just can’t seem to work out that hurricane problem, tornados, earthquakes, floods, disease, the common cold. And God wants to constantly test us, even killed his own kid (you’d think he’d have the power to not need that?) it’s a scam. lol
What blissful ignorance. You apply the one-dimentional man-made limits to god. The god I know has only to watch the system he created - it is self sustaining. Any good you want, you can get; and dig yourself into a hole? You get to dig yourself out. No judging needs to occur from god in a self-righting system.
I can use my reef aquarium for an example. I set it up in a day, but it takes time (weeks) for it to cycle and do what it needs in order to prepare itself. I still started the whole thing, and understand it inside-out - but I do not judge/kill the fish. They may keep running into the anenomy, and die, but I do not, nor need to, control every fluctuation of every parameter. And yes, the stupid fish will look at me and ask why was I so mean as to LET the goby starve after chewing on that pretty, but toxic, pulsating xenia; but that is said out of the notion that I am controling EVERY minute detail of the system. And we are back to the root of humans issues: Entitlement. You think we are entitled to a father in the sky that adjusts every little parameter to our liking, just as you do in waking life, which is why we are refered to as children in the bible.
Hence why no one debates here long - there is no need of intelligent approach to any subject.
By Jack
March 29, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this
Whiley. he may have had an “easy” button from Staples. LOL
By Mara
March 29, 2006 01:05 PM | Link to this
JBM - (sigh) I know, I know….I’m a glutton for punishment I guess. ;^P
By Chilao
March 29, 2006 01:07 PM | Link to this
even killed his own kid (you’d think he’d have the power to not need that?)
I heard a good idea recently: If the Bible truly were the inspired word of God, you would think he would have been making every effort through the ages to not only see that it was translated correctly and without editting, he would be making every effort to see that it was not misquoted/misused.
Heresy I know, but just a thought. LOL
Yeah, Lucifer was Gabriel’s arch rival before the fall. The Mayans have a similiar story.
I have an email out to a reporter on the other side of the world about the correct spelling for “Totamana” (or whateva, could be something like Tau’ta-mane) but it is about 3 am there, so do not expect a return any time soon. If I even get one, could be a sensitive subject. LOL
By Renee
March 29, 2006 01:08 PM | Link to this
John - I love your 11:49 post.
I agree with JBM, I find it hard to believe that someone who has never had an abortion nor a papsmear could begin to argue what it feels like and/or what the end results could be. As stated many times before, there is a risk with any medical procedure you do. My boss just had knee surgery which has a 9% fatality rate. That’s high for knee surgery, shouldn’t we ban it too, then.
One of my main beefs with the bible is the whole creating of the earth in a week thing. What a bunch of cockie-poo. I can understand why people centuries ago could believe that BS, but now???? When it’s been PROVEN that our earth is billions of years old
Whiley, I don’t find this to be a valid argument, especially when people don’t believe it was created last week. The belief is that it was created in a week, many (not sure of the amount equating to many) years ago.
By chuck
March 29, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this
What God’s Word Says About Abortion By Lynn Copeland
God speaks very clearly in the Bible on the value of unborn children. God’s Word says that He personally made each one of us, and has a plan for each life:
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart” (Jeremiah 1:5).
“Even before I was born, God had chosen me to be His” (Galatians 1:15).
“For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother’s womb … Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in Your book before one of them came to be” (Psalm 139:13, 16). “Your hands shaped me and made me … Did You not clothe me with skin and flesh and knit me together with bones and sinews? You gave me life” (Job 10:8–12).
“This is what the Lord says—He who made you, who formed you in the womb” (Isaiah 44:2).
“Did not He who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same One form us both within our mothers?” (Job 31:15).
Because man is made in God’s own image (Genesis 1:27), each life is of great value to God: “Children are a gift from God” (Psalm 127:3). He even calls our children His own: “You took your sons and daughters whom you bore to Me and sacrificed them…You slaughtered My children” (Ezekiel 16:20,21). The Bible says of our Creator, “In His hand is the life of every living thing and the breath of every human being” (Job 12:10). God, the giver of life, commands us not to take the life of an innocent person: “Do not shed innocent blood” (Jeremiah 7:6); “Cursed is the man who accepts a bribe to kill an innocent person” (Deuteronomy 27:25). “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13). Taking the life of the unborn is clearly murder—”He didn’t kill me in the womb, with my mother as my grave” (Jeremiah 20:17)— and God vowed to punish those who “ripped open the women with child” (Amos 1:13).
The unborn child was granted equal protection in the law; if he lost his life, the one who caused his death must lose his own life: “If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined …But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life” (Exodus 21:22,23). Life is a gift created by God, and is not to be taken away by abortion. God is “prochoice,” but He tells us clearly the only acceptable choice to make: “I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live” (Deuteronomy 30:19).
By The72John
March 29, 2006 01:09 PM | Link to this
Oh my gosh - a christian fundamentalist website claims to have proof that the Bible is historically correct! Why…I must be wrong about everything!
By Chilao
March 29, 2006 01:10 PM | Link to this
Jack - I thought the same thing about Staples. LOL
Anybody ever heard/read of Landover Baptist Church? A Baptist coworker pointed it out to me, he was aghast. Worth a read.
By Just Being Me
March 29, 2006 01:11 PM | Link to this
I am curious as to why people in general (obviously my question is sparked by a particular recent incident, but it is still a general question) have such a hard time accepting that their opinion is just an opinion and isn’t necessarily right. I’m also curious about why people have a hard time accepting that Jim and Jane may both be right even though they are saying two different things.
The fact is that some people have abortions that are traumatic. Some women end up with fragments of the fetus left in their bodies. Some women die. Some women end up with infections. Some women have nightmares. Some women hear babies crying in their heads. Some women live the rest of their lives with regret.
AT THE SAME TIME, there are some women who are not at all traumatized by their abortions. Some women say that their experience was nothing more dreadful than having a pap smear. Some have completely uncomplicated procedures wherein they walk away just as healthy as they were before they got pregnant. Some women don’t have nightmares or regrets, nor do they hear babies crying or experience guilt.
By FatMoose
March 29, 2006 01:13 PM | Link to this
The fact is that you are making sweeping statements implying that all women should expect to have some kind of horrifying, debilitating and painful procedure.
No I am not and you should paste something that shows I have posted this view.
And to rebut: Where as the reality is that somegirl that could be on the blog today may go in expecting a proceedure that is simalar to a pap smear bc of the ignorance spouted - and end up one of my dad’s patients. Shows I did not SLANT my view.
You state, and I am accurate: Somegirl may indeed have a traumatic abortion but there’s just as good a chance that she won’t. Stating it is a 50/50 chance - which is false and is ignorant.
And do not forget the talk! I would hate for you to not be able to sustain a conversation bc you cannot remember how to act without someone jarring you.
Subtle;)
By Mara
March 29, 2006 01:15 PM | Link to this
Kimberly, that program I was talking about, Banned from the Bible, was really really interesting. There are so many transcripts and gospels that were deemed to be “too contraversial” or “un-verifiable” to be included into canon. For example, there are ancient writings alleging that Mary Magdalene was actually one of the Apostles. In fact, they say she was one of Jesus’ favorite apostles. According to the program, Jesus imparted upon her many holy proclaimations that he neglected to share with the others. Because of her gender, meaning the intrinsic sinfulness of her nature as a daughter of Eve, the gospel was deemed…suspect. As I said, it was a very interesting program.
By chuck
March 29, 2006 01:18 PM | Link to this
fm, I don’t often say this, but your 1:02 is the MOST logical thing I have ever heard you say. Brilliant. I believe I have underestimated you.
By GOB
March 29, 2006 01:23 PM | Link to this
Hence why no one debates here long - there is no need of intelligent approach to any subject.
FM - I think the reason no one spends much time debating you has more to do with your condescending, know-it-all tone. If you aren’t willing to even accept the possibility that other people might have more information or have a better insight into something than you do, why would any of us waste our time?
By Just Being Me
March 29, 2006 01:25 PM | Link to this
Mara, just forget it. Remember that at one point, everyone on this blog becomes ignorant (or a simpleton), in FM’s opinion. Well, everyone except him, of course. I can easily count the regulars on this blog who have not been called some condescending name by him. Fortunately, we are all smart enough to know better.
Anyone on this blog (and I do mean anyone) can tell that you are far from ignorant. You are among the smartest women on this blog. Hopefully, you’re dismissing him with a flicker of the hand.
By kimberly
March 29, 2006 01:28 PM | Link to this
QUOTE THIS, CHUCKIE: Palms 137, verse 9: Happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
See how ANY A—HOLE can quote or twist this book you worship in order to make their point? So please just admit you hate women and gay people, and that hatred and disharmony are the predominant driving factors in your life. C’mon Chuck. Admit it. THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE.
By Renee
March 29, 2006 01:30 PM | Link to this
Good comment again Gob! I think we need another tiara!! RF…give it up!!
By Whiley
March 29, 2006 01:30 PM | Link to this
And MOST are thankful legal abortion was avail to them. MOST did not have a “bad” experience. MOST learn from it & go on with their lives. I’ve never had one but I’ve had MANY friends over the years face this issue. If I can remember correctly I’ve assisted 5 women to clinics. The only bad behavior I witnessed were the bible beaters picketing. We always had a good laugh about it because NONE were attractive in any way, or they were fat old men. Of course abortion would never be THEIR issue. On one occasion we had “words” with them, we received an earful of “whores” calling of course. Nice bible beaters they were. Today if one of them were in my face, I’d mace them. Would that be legal? To be honest that was a long time ago, although unplanned pregnancies happen later on in life, it seems almost everybody was dealing with it when we were really young. Birth control wasn’t talked about as much back then, so it wasn’t surprising the pregnancy rates among us. We were kids, with little to no ability to say no to much of anything lol. And if alcohol was involved, lol forget it. I doubt that’s changed much.
By Jack
March 29, 2006 01:31 PM | Link to this
Mara. That sounds like what Brown wrote in “The DaVinci Code”. The also removed reincarnation from the bible because they didn’t want people to give up and commit suicide when things get tough.
FM. GOB is right.
By GOB
March 29, 2006 01:32 PM | Link to this
Chilao - Landover is high comedy. Reading the letters is one of the best parts, especially those that have no idea what parody or satire are.
By FatMoose
March 29, 2006 01:33 PM | Link to this
I heard a good idea recently: If the Bible truly were the inspired word of God, you would think he would have been making every effort through the ages to not only see that it was translated correctly and without editting, he would be making every effort to see that it was not misquoted/misused.
God explains that the he and the truth is hidden - and it is also explained by jesus that everyone of his followers will betray him. So to find the truth, one must dig deep and hard - which should be no surprise.
……………..
Chuck,
The world is made up of truths, and many of them can be found without the bible. When use of the bible blocks out other truths or avenues to truth - it is no longer serving a divine purpose. I suggest you think on this fact.
When you find two truths that seem to oppose, you see an impass, where-as I see guidence to a greater truth. For all the truths I have found do layer nicely, although complex, like fractels upon each other. If they do not match up, I know I have more areas to discover and it is my thinking/understanding that is flawed - not that one of the truths must be trashed.
By Just Being Me
March 29, 2006 01:34 PM | Link to this
GOB, don’t bother. That question has been asked and unanswered so many times. In fact, I can’t even count how many people have called FM out on his condescending little comments. And I can predict (in fact, I did predict earlier this week) each time he’ll make this grand departure stating that he can never have an intelligent debate because everyone here is beneath him and not worthy of his time… and he just comes here to be entertained… yada yada yada. There isn’t a single regular here who hasn’t heard that at least three times in the last few months. (They may not want to get involved, but they know it’s true).
By Whiley
March 29, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this
Chuck, the bible is poppy-c**, so I don’t believe any of the “quotes” you spout as true.
YOU may believe it that’s fine & dandy, as long as you don’t force your belief’s on an entire country.
Why do the bible beaters love to quote the bible so much? like if they spout it enough all of a sudden they’ll convince others,”well dang he says it enough, it’s printed in that pretty book, dang it must be true.”
By GOB
March 29, 2006 01:38 PM | Link to this
Renee - Might wife might start to wonder about me if i come home in a tiara…
By Whiley
March 29, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this
Is “The DaVinci Code” really that good?
By RF
March 29, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this
See, that’s where I have a problem with christianity, FM. If it’s true, then why hide it? Why would the all-powerful, life-saving truth need to be hidden? Seems illogical to me. That’s another of man’s inventions to explain all the editing, adding, and deleting we’ve done over the millenia.
By Mara
March 29, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this
Last post to FM (at least for this topic yawn) - 3:28 yesterday - Well, I have seen all the patients that my dad had (psychiatrist) who had abortions, and they experienced long term trauma.
11:09 - I was showing that it is not in any case simalar to a pap smear…In reality it proves that this is always a psychological risk
12:11 - the reality is that somegirl that could be on the blog today may go in expecting a proceedure that is simalar to a pap smear bc of the ignorance spouted - and end up one of my dad’s patients.
and sure stating that there’s a 50/50 chance she’ll have a traumatic abortion may be ignorant, but I really didn’t want to say you were completely full of “it”… So where are your NON-partisan statistics saying that 50/50 is false? Eh? EH?!
(ok, I’m done now…)
By Renee
March 29, 2006 01:44 PM | Link to this
LOL Gob - right, right. Umm….okay..we’ll come up with something else, maybe a belt??? A big manly, weightlifter type belt, with some Blog Award on the buckle….lol
By FatMoose
March 29, 2006 01:46 PM | Link to this
JBM,
Worming your way back into my arms? NTY.
Remember that at one point, everyone on this blog becomes ignorant (or a simpleton), in FM’s opinion.
Not everyone - most, but not everyone. And before you lie, it does not fall on gender lines either.
And you can replace that with: Remember that at one point, everyone on this blog becomes beligerent name callers as soon as someone tries to debate something decently.
I have lurked out of curiosity and find the same caustic dialogs on here without the people you want to blame - including chuck. I was lurking last week and it was just you, jack and the other fraternity members; and you guys tore each other up as well as this week too. And the conclusion to your arguement? The same as ours the first few times - you were talking about x and he was talking about y. if you cannot keep a debate straight - be ready to frustrate people who can.
Just look at Julia’s tenacity yesterday inspite of yours and others toxic attitudes/words…And I had no part in that yet you acted every bit as ignorant and caustic as ever.
By Nikita
March 29, 2006 01:47 PM | Link to this
From Fat Moose: “To truely be OK with this premise, I find I would have to be OK in thinking that if you never existed; there would be no loss: To me, you, or the world - I see NO evidence that supports that level of unimportance.”
FM, I don’t agree with this thinking. In my opinion you are unique — however you don’t become you until some point in your development. And you certainly aren’t you before you are sentient. So, there is no loss if you cease to progress before becoming.
Furthermore, as far as the world is considered there is no loss. Our worlds are of necessity constructed of what is in them, not what is not. If we are well-adjusted we celebrate what’s in them — we don’t mourn jobs we didn’t get, buildings that were not built, or people we never met.
Personally, if I’m going to mourn things that did not come to pass, I mourn people who spend their lives being abused, being wards of the state, or suffering catastrophic injuries. Because these are real people, and they suffer unto their deaths.
There was a boy here who was beaten to death by his mother and her boyfriend a few years ago. His death, frankly, didn’t bother me — but the fact that he lived so, and that the ordinary hell of his life devolved into a violent end really upsets me.
By Nikita
March 29, 2006 01:51 PM | Link to this
Also… a) To those who do not respect the authority of the bible as the infallible, god-inspired truth, the words from it matter not at all. So, unless we’re going to institute a theocracy they cannot be the basis for our laws. b) Multiple studies were done on post-abortion trauma by people who badly wanted to find some. C. Everett Koop, for one. And they didn’t.
By RF
March 29, 2006 01:58 PM | Link to this
Nikita- that’s the problem noone really wants to deal with. Nothing is sadder than an unwanted, unloved, or abused child. Yet, in all the debate, no real solutions can be found to the very real problem of abuse, neglect, and death brought on by parents of these children.
By RF
March 29, 2006 02:00 PM | Link to this
Renee- get him a manly man hat. Trucker’s cap with stitched on logo would be good.
By Jack
March 29, 2006 02:04 PM | Link to this
Yes Whiley a very good read. You will see why the church didn’t like it too much.
If a man is elected and is a Christian, he will vote as a Christian then let the courts decide.
By FatMoose
March 29, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this
I think the reason no one spends much time debating you has more to do with your condescending, know-it-all tone. If you aren’t willing to even accept the possibility that other people might have more information or have a better insight into something than you do, why would any of us waste our time?
Last q first: people might have more information or have a better insight into something than you do, why would any of us waste our time?
That is the point - besides a couple of people on here (julia, NetB for example) - no one PROVIDES insight; they provide opinions that they assert without any type of backing in a crass/sarcastic tone. I reply to those “debates” with a sweep of “Do you really have nothing else to provide besides opinion + attitude?” And the overwhelming response from you is a big fat “YES - All I have is my opinion and if you do not like it you can….” And then the name calling begins by most of you. At this point I do not take you serious - repeat and rinse a number of times, and I will never take you serious.
All of my postitions on the blog are backed some reference - and it takes a rebuttal of references to see what falls out of the equation that we both can learn from. This happens with those, and SOME others, named above.
By Chilao
March 29, 2006 02:14 PM | Link to this
Whiley - The DaVinci Code is a great read, as a work of fiction. Recently as a result of Dan Brown’s London Court testimony, we learn how he devises books, and that was straight formula for him, he gets the major outline down in less than a day.
but as as suspenseful, crime-drama read, with some history, cloak&dagger, religion etc. fun book.
I won’t give away the punchline in that book in exactly what puts you closer to God.
But they have learned who the model was for DaVinci’s Mona Lisa. It was the DaVinci coed. ahjahahahahahaha
By Mara
March 29, 2006 02:15 PM | Link to this
Renee - love the big weight-lifter belt idea. Maybe one of those WCW rastlin’ belts? LOL!
JBM - (curtsey bob…) thank you so much. The compliment on intelligence is much appreciated coming from one so obviously well-read and accomplished. And wise. I forgot wise.
Whiley - The DaVinci Code is one of the best mystery adventures that I have read in a long time. Well researched, well written, and…as they say, a real page turner. The follow-up novel “Angels and Demons” isn’t quite as polished but is also a good read.
Jack - The story of the “Beloved apostle” being Mary Magdalene has been around for a very long time. There are reams and reams of learned text, research, supposition and thundering denunciations present in every serious theological library in the world. Dan Brown did a magnificent job of mainstreaming this rather contraversial topic, but he wasn’t the first to posit it, nor will he be the last, I’m sure. In fact, he either recently or soon will be in court defending himself in a copy-right infringement suit from a couple of authors who did a study of this in the ‘70’s (or 80’s, don’t know when exactly…) I’m looking forward to the movie.
By Chilao
March 29, 2006 02:16 PM | Link to this
I thought GOB might want his wife to play the man for a change, as he wears the tiara.
Just a thought. Something I read in a book somewhere, yeah, that’s it. LMAO
By RF
March 29, 2006 02:19 PM | Link to this
But they have learned who the model was for DaVinci’s Mona Lisa. It was the DaVinci coed.
Chilao- Ohhhhhh man you have soooo got to step away from the coffee pot, dude!!
By GOB
March 29, 2006 02:23 PM | Link to this
FM - Your last post does nothing but re-enforce the opinion of many people on here.
Stating it is a 50/50 chance - which is false and is ignorant.
All of my postitions on the blog are backed some reference
The only reference you have given regarding the chance of an abortion being a horrible, traumatic experience is that you saw them at your dad’s office. That may be a reference, but it certainly isn’t compelling.
Also, what kind of psychiatrist lets his son know what is said by his patients? That seems to violate a few ethical rules, right?
By FatMoose
March 29, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this
FM, I don’t agree with this thinking. In my opinion you are unique — however you don’t become you until some point in your development.
I understand, yet we cannot say when that point is - and the paradox that “Its a wonderful life” scenerios presents in a topic like this can only make one think.
And, although cheesey, I think FGump was right that “it is a little of both” random and fate (very bad word for what I am trying to describe: more along the lines of inter-connectedness is my goal). But I do not know which one (randomness/uniqueness) abortion would end - only the random, or the meaningful connectedness.
Seeing as I do not know, I present the debate as far as I have taken it in my head (and with others before you all) - and do not play favorites to either side; but I do test the concept that is currently lagging to see if it can catch up. Which is why lately I have been kicking around the opposite side in which I am on.
Unlike others - I have no opinion that I am emotionally attached to; but to call names and demand validation of others opinions is not something I adhere to as healthy.
So, to continue with what we are digging at: If you do find that someone IS unique at some point in developement - should we not continually dig at when this point might be?
By Jack
March 29, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this
This IS an opinion blog Moose. Some of us do not have the luxury to research, cut & paste, or read lengthy cut & Paste Chuck posts. People don’t debate me a lot cause they know I’m here for fun. I used to get angry. Not anymore. It is much more fun to agravate you and sit back and laugh. Call me troll, trailer trash or whatever, no matter to me.
By Bruce
March 29, 2006 02:30 PM | Link to this
Every duck! GOB just went a did it!!!!
By Chilao
March 29, 2006 02:31 PM | Link to this
RF - that was actually a PlayboyPartyJoke back when the book was hot-off-the-press, the DaVinciCoed thing. LOL
and I had that newscastle brown ale friday, then a heineken saturday, and sunday morning cooking took a big ole swig of Rumpleminze(100 proof peppermint schnapps). had to get above the stove for an appliance and there is was, staring me in the face.
But I don’t drink, I really don’t. LOL In fact that was the first alcohol since Feb 25th.
By Zack
March 29, 2006 02:40 PM | Link to this
Kimberly—Don’t use the term, “Quote this…”, especially since Chuck spoke of the Bible.
You have some serious, serious issues and are a sick and sorry individual. You hate innocent children and men, don’t you?
I gave you my e-mail address if you’d like to discuss anything.
By FatMoose
March 29, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this
The only reference you have given regarding the chance of an abortion being a horrible, traumatic experience is that you saw them at your dad’s office. That may be a reference, but it certainly isn’t compelling.
See, here you are purely argueing. With a personal jab at the end: Also, what kind of psychiatrist lets his son know what is said by his patients? That seems to violate a few ethical rules, right? No - Not right if I have no knowledge of peoples personal info.
I did not state or intend for it to be the end-all-be-all, but a point that does prove that it is not without risks. And that point was made to show the failability (or is it fallability?) in the arguement against making it manditory to provide information to a woman with the possible outcomes.
But, people on here are emotionally attached to their opinions in a BIG way - too big of a way to debate the topics with any discovery in mind.
By Chilao
March 29, 2006 02:44 PM | Link to this
if you want to read another “What IF Jesus…” Fiction book, read Kathy Reich’s Cross Bones.(she the author-behind/producer-of Fox’s BONES show tonight) Israeli antiquities dealer in Montreal gets killed over a skeleton he got from a monastery, and the bones are from a Masada dig, but not in the record(spirited away), the Masada dig from a slightly older time (Masada around 100 A.D. I think). She (forensic anthropologist) goes to Isreal for further research about the bones and the dig and . blah blah blah.
good fiction.
By Renee
March 29, 2006 02:45 PM | Link to this
Good comment Jack. I was going to say something along those lines, but you put it so well.
This blog is to well, express opinions. Opinions shared, or not shared by a diverse group of people.
What I don’t understand FM, is if you find the blog (minus NetB and Julia and a couple other chosen ones) so inane, why do you continue to visit and post. One of your intellect, surely must find it a great waste of time to do so.
By Zack
March 29, 2006 02:47 PM | Link to this
Someone referred to this blog as an opinion blog. True, but not everyone is right. With six billion people in the world, and with each one having an opinion, and since many disagree, we know that some are right and others are wrong. (Truth is truth; it’s not what WE make it out to be.)
To the people in here who insist on saying a fetus isn’t a human being, that’s easily one of the dumbest statements ever said. If you think I’m being too blunt, I’m not being blunt enough. Murder is a serious issue, and we need to defend innocent lives. I’m far from perfect, but I have a hard time keeping quiet when people say abortion isn’t murder. (Then these people either go pay or encourage others to pay psychologists to lie and tell them that post-abortion guilt isn’t really guilt. Indeed, one lie leads to another.)
Yes, a fetus is a human being. Kimberly and her friends can come on here and say whatever they’d like, but their opinions don’t change the truth one iota.
I met a girl a while back that I was interested in…until she told me she thought abortion was a mother’s right. At that point, her sick worldview more than outweighed her cute face. This type of girl needs not to be asked out, and she wasn’t.
By Renee
March 29, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this
Oh, RF, good idea about the hat LOL.
But, people on here are emotionally attached to their opinions in a BIG way - too big of a way to debate the topics with any discovery in mind.
Generally speaking, aren’t most people emotionally attached to their opinions. I would say there are a select (nameless lol) few, who absolutely refuse to even acknowledge that others have opinions that could possibly be right. Or acknowledge that two, three, or even four people can have differing opinions, none of which are wrong. Opinions are how people feel, based upon issues they have seen or dealt with in life, and for the most part are neither right or wrong, but hold strong emotional and/or religous ties.
By FatMoose
March 29, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this
It is much more fun to agravate you and sit back and laugh.
I agree - that is the extent of the learning experience here.
This IS an opinion blog Moose. Right - and everyone that visits it begins by foolishly thinking that after two+ people state their opinions; you get to back them up and actually think about how it fits, or does not fit, together; and keep volleying - but most of you act like kids and call names the first time you see an opinion you do not like.
How is it the expression of disconcern for such name calling antics hurts you all more than the names? The answer is you all EXPECT the name calling - bc that is what you do and it means nothing. But invalidation of that name calling sounds too much like an adult and you call foul!
But here, it is purely about opinion - and pure opinion means nothing, except to those that need validating.
By The72John
March 29, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this
I met a girl a while back that I was interested in…until she told me she thought abortion was a mother’s right. At that point, her sick worldview more than outweighed her cute face. This type of girl needs not to be asked out, and she wasn’t.
You know, I’d HEARD about women who date men in prison, but I’d never credited it until now. Well, it takes all kinds…
By Just Being Me
March 29, 2006 02:53 PM | Link to this
FM, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for me to go back and forth with you. As I said before, every regular on here (friend or foe) knows that you take pleasure in making lame attempts to use “big words” (the ones that have more than 5 letters, such as your favorite “caustic”) to appear intelligent. We know that you almost always spell these words incorrectly, use them incorrectly, and have the poorest sentence structure this blog has ever seen. The regulars here know (and have called you out on it several times) that you take pleasure in engaging people in debate by making these ridiculous assertions fraught with 6th grade vocabulary words that don’t fit, and then end the debate (9 times out of ten) by saying that you are too intelligent to discuss any real topic with anyone here, and everyone is beneath you and everyone is uninformed and unintelligent except you, and you only come here to make fun of everyone else… Either that, or you say that you are reminded of why you stopped coming here, and you won’t be back. The problem is that you always come back! I’m just glad that two of our more intelligent newcomers have seen your idiotic displays for themselves.
Now, the bottom line is that until you have both a pap smear and an abortion, your opinion of either procedure is weightless and meaningless. It doesn’t mean a darned thing to any-darned-body here.
Anyway, I didn’t need to say all that. Just got carried away, as I often do. GOB said it best. Everything you say is condescending and most of it is contradictory. It is ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS to read you calling someone else ignorant.
That is the best laugh I ever get on here.
By Renee
March 29, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this
Okay I couldn’t resist:
Fetus (as per Merriam-Webster)
Main Entry: fe·tus Pronunciation: ‘fE-t&s Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Latin, act of bearing young, offspring; akin to Latin fetus newly delivered, fruitful — more at : an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually three months after conception to birth
By RF
March 29, 2006 02:55 PM | Link to this
You have some serious, serious issues and are a sick and sorry individual
Well, there’s a pleasant, christian attitude for you. That’s precisely why I don’t go to church on a regular basis. I find more and more people who treat others that way. Noone addressed you Zack, and yet you feel the need to purposefully and sinfully disrespect kimberly when she hasn’t typed a word to you today.
Geez people, this is worse than an elementary school playground sometimes. GROW-UP WHY DON’T YA?
By FatMoose
March 29, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this
What I don’t understand FM, is if you find the blog (minus NetB and Julia and a couple other chosen ones) so inane, why do you continue to visit and post. One of your intellect, surely must find it a great waste of time to do so.
The interaction I get from a couple of the bloggers, I am occasionally surprised (like a couple weeks ago with Jack K), sometimes the kick the elevated emotions expressed gives me, and more-over: Hope
By Jack
March 29, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this
Thank you for your opinion Zack. Don’t hold your breath waiting for Kimberly to e-mail you. You are not in her league, not even close.
By The72John
March 29, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this
It’s even funnier when he starts bemoaning other people’s name calling…
Just go back through his recent posts over the last couple of weeks and count the insults he has thrown at other people…I believe he called Jack trailer trash, for instance? Oh, and when someone mentions HIS spelling, it’s being “the spelling police”, but he has NO problem in pointing out someone ELSES spelling mistake.
Oh, and anyone else who gets irritated and goes off on someone is just proving his superiority, but it’s ok when HE gets irritated and goes off on people.
I could go on and on, but it just encourages him. I think he needs a hug. And some warm milk. And cookies.
By GOB
March 29, 2006 03:02 PM | Link to this
But, people on here are emotionally attached to their opinions in a BIG way - too big of a way to debate the topics with any discovery in mind.
And I assume you are above this, right? I think if you were to look back over the posts on this blog from the last few weeks, the majority of posters actually do have a pretty open mind, and are willing to listen to the ideas that are brought to the table.
There are several people that are so set in their ways that nothing can make them even conceive that they may not have all the answers, but that is a pretty small minority on here.
As I said earlier, the reason people don’t debate you long is your tone. Who wants to deal with someone who has shown no ability to speak without being condescending and arrogant? Other than me apparently…
By Just Being Me
March 29, 2006 03:03 PM | Link to this
LOL Renee’s 2:45!!!!!! Good question, though. Surely he is far more intelligent than us feeble-minded imbeciles. Doesn’t MENSA have a blog? Surely their conversation is far more engaging and intelligent than ours. Why ever would he continue to subject himself to the agony of debating thought-provoking subjects with ignoramuses (or should that be ignorami) when he can go to another blog and be SURROUNDED by highly intelligent people, just like NetB. and Julia. Instead of two smart people, he would have scores of them!! What a brilliant idea, Renee!
But, people on here are emotionally attached to their opinions in a BIG way - too big of a way to debate the topics with any discovery in mind.
“Any discovery in mind” = ending the debate with the realization (discovery) that you were wrong all along and the all-knowing FM was right. How ignorant we are!!!
By Netbanker
March 29, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this
chilao…I LOVE Betty Bowers and Landover Baptist. Just hilarious!
On the historical accuracy of the Bible…history is written by the winners. Hence it’s all a matter of perspective and the assumption that if you won God MUST have been on your side.
FM…I tend to think the way you do in regard to how far God is involved in people’s lives. I just don’t think he really is. The whole prayer before a football game thing for example…as if God actually cares which side wins a stupid game!!
About the abortion thing. I agree with you that it may be a traumatic experience for some women. Being forced to bear a child and then be forced to give it up for adoption will be a traumatic and lifelong psychologically damaging proposition for some women also. Aren’t many women wracked with guilt and wonder what happened to that little baby they never saw or that was ripped from the arms after only a few moments? What about the trauma caused to women who willingly gave up the child only to have them resurface in their life afterward? I’m not saying I support abortion (for these reasons or any other). What I’m saying is that it’s a woman’s choice and that any decision COULD result in needing a shrink based on the individual.
for something to be a “scam” doesn’t someone have to benefit from the scam and someone else has to be deceived into giving something? I think in many cases people scam themselves and are deceived into giving up autonomy and responsibility for their own lives. My example is a silly one, but true. On the Amazing Race about 2 seasons ago was a male/female couple of models who were also very religious. I don’t recall the exact challenge point, but they stopped to pray. They got the outcome they really wanted/hoped for, but went on to say if it had gone the other way they would have accepted that as either way would have been God’s will. My partner and I view that as a cop out on personal responsibility in life. No matter what happens it’s because of God no matter what you wanted/did/attempted/failed at? You’re reduced to a blessed puppet with God pulling the strings?! I’d say organized religion is a scam even if viewed as an individual can benefit by gaining a sense of non-responsibility (ie. it’s all in God’s hands no matter what I do) while at the same time they are deceiving themselves into giving up have some control over their own destiny. I just don’t think God is all that involved in our daily lives and activities while they’re happening.
By Chilao
March 29, 2006 03:04 PM | Link to this
Zack - where’s that cute-faced babe again? Might be my kinda gal. LOL
By FatMoose
March 29, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this
JBM,
Seeing as your first words are inaccurate AND personal - it proves what I am saying about you: “big words” (the ones that have more than 5 letters, such as your favorite “caustic”) to appear intelligent.
Caustic is not a big word - for me anyways…And this answers who it was that posted anonomosly last week to me - cheap.
every regular on here (friend or foe) knows that you take pleasure in making lame attempts to use “big words”
Not unless you count 27j as everyone.
I didn’t need to say all that. Just got carried away, as I often do.
I agree - and it also re-enforces my point.
By kimberly
March 29, 2006 03:05 PM | Link to this
Hello Zack.
Don’t use the term, “Quote this…”, especially since Chuck spoke of the Bible. First, you’re not the boss of me, so don’t tell me what to do. Second, I got that from my BIBLE that I carry around in my little work bag for reference when MEN try to use it to tell me what to do. Do you dispute the accuracy of the Psalms 137:9 quote? Well, do ya?
You have some serious, serious issues and are a sick and sorry individual. Um, thanks for your compassion, brother Zack. May I trust you with my life now?
You hate innocent children and men, don’t you? Um, nope. Love kids, actually, especially my own, and have no problem with NICE men, even those with whom I sometimes disagree, like Jack. Love my Daddy too, just not you so much. Sorry.
I gave you my e-mail address if you’d like to discuss anything. Heh.
I met a girl a while back that I was interested in…until she told me she thought abortion was a mother’s right — snippage — needs not to be asked out, and she wasn’t. I dated a man for six months last year who said his faith was very important to him. He also thought a woman shouldn’t have the final say over her own body. He was a “good Christian man” and a Republican. And behind closed doors he was a SADISTIC FREAK! I mean, of the “you want me to do WHAT?” variety. I mean, even for ME! Had to break it off ‘cause he was such a hypocrite, wanted me to wait on him like a maid, criticized everything I did, and spent way to much time whining like a girl. SEE ZACK? We both have bad relationship stories. What exactly is YOUR problem today?
By chuck
March 29, 2006 03:09 PM | Link to this
KIMMIE, KIMMIE, KIMMIE,
I love it when people who know absolutely nothing about scripture try to use it to make their points. In Psalms 137 David is lamenting what has been done to Jerusalem. As part of that lamentation, he is calling for divine retribution against those who have destroyed Jerusalem. It has nothing to do with any kind of commandment by God to do that to babies. If you are going to make these insane statements you ought to at least do a little research first so you don’t sound like a fool.
By kimberly
March 29, 2006 03:14 PM | Link to this
Thanks for making my point, Chuck!!! Just because you can find a verse in the bible that supports your theory (and anyone can if they try), doesn’t make it true.
Does Chuckie get the tiara today? Hahahaha!
By The72John
March 29, 2006 03:17 PM | Link to this
Lol, no one at Mensa would be fooled by his psuedo-intelectual nonsense. He would be unmasked for the pretentious, uneducated poseur that he is. After all, it takes more than a word-of-the-day calendar and the audiobook of the Complete Works of Deepak Chopra to pull off the “I’m smarter than all of you” act in front of people who are, well, smarter than most.
By FatMoose
March 29, 2006 03:18 PM | Link to this
As I said earlier, the reason people don’t debate you long is your tone. Read the response below.
Who wants to deal with someone who has shown no ability to speak without being condescending and arrogant? I am condescending AFTER the name calling and sarcasm begins - look to every post and reply from NetB - yet you state “I have shown no ability.” And conversly, I AM condescending to those who still call names as a WAY of pushing them away bc I DONT want their input, but they keep addressing me - look to the creeping in of renee,jbm,and now j27. None of which can keep their cool if not pleased.
Other than me apparently…
You have not called any names; therefore I have no beef with you - I have resorted to name calling now three times on the blog; and each of those occured after being called names and digging through sarcasm for a number of posts.
By Agree's with Moose
March 29, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this
Actually FM, I would have to say that the physical ramifications of the caustic cyborgs, bring an element of existence to the flux of the hypothesis being deliberated currently.
By The72John
March 29, 2006 03:25 PM | Link to this
I AM condescending to those who still call names as a WAY of pushing them away bc I DONT want their input, but they keep addressing me - look to the creeping in of renee,jbm,and now j27. None of which can keep their cool if not pleased.
LOL! It’s a public blog, FatMonkey. I’m sooo sorry to be “addressing” you, your majesty! If you don’t like it, kindly exuant stage right, post haste! Because I promise you, as long as you are here masquerading as an educated and enlightened intellectual, I will be here to ridicule you, and point out the blatant hypocrisy of your woefully unsupportable arrogance.
By FatMoose
March 29, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this
NetB,
What I’m saying is that it’s a woman’s choice and that any decision COULD result in needing a shrink based on the individual.
We seem to agree - unless I am missing a point in your post. BC I agree that the number of ill-effected women could be low but a bill that would make it manditory to explain all the possible outcomes could ONLY be a good thing, but was shot down with hostility on the boards.
This black/white/absolute thinking is what I oppose - on any side of an arguement. It also makes me wonder if the person is actually looking for answers - or only the answers that fit into their schema.
By Renee
March 29, 2006 03:28 PM | Link to this
ummm…FM…you never deliver an unsolicited response??? This is a blog, which consists of opinions to people who do and do not want the input.
By Jack
March 29, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this
The caustic ramifications of the physical cyborgs bring an element of hypothesis to the flux of existence being deliberated currenty.
By Julia
March 29, 2006 03:31 PM | Link to this
Hi everyone. I am sorry that work has called me away this afternoon. Yesterday I was out of work and today I’m covered up. Trying to catch up here a little bit. (Please excuse the long post.)
One of my main beefs with the bible is the whole creating of the earth in a week thing. When it’s been PROVEN that our earth is billions of years old.
Who exactly proved this…some scientists? How exactly does one prove something is a billion years old anyway?
Pontificate all you want, oh self-righteous, preacher-thumpers. Your track record SUCKS, and we have documented history to prove it!
I don’t think I’ve ever “thumped” a preacher! LOL…….Jesus Christ’s track record is perfect and flawless. (Not going into the pontificate catholic issue…too much ground to cover.) And my track record as a Christian and that of my church does not “suck” thank you very much. (I know you were not speaking personally-just thought I’d throw that in.)
*And what about the cavemen & dinosaurs? If the bible is the end all be all & knows everything, why doesn’t it discuss it? The bible seems to have remembered everything a snake in a garden said word for word, but nothing specific about the cavemen & dinosaurs? *
That really is a great question. However, the bible was never intended to include everything that happened from the beginning of earth. (How BIG a book THAT would be!!! LOL!) It does give us what we need in order to live lives pleasing to God. It does give us encouragement and valuable information. It does give us information on history. It helps with our day to day lives. It also includes prophecy. (How many of the bible prophecies have already come true?)
God has the ability, but just can’t seem to work out that hurricane problem, tornados, earthquakes, floods, disease, the common cold. And God wants to constantly test us, even killed his own kid (you’d think he’d have the power to not need that?) it’s a scam
WOW…I understand why you’re confused. God can do anything but He doesn’t force us to do what He wants. When sin entered into the picture everything changed. I don’t think God created the disease. The disease may be the natural result of unhealthy eating/chemical foods, etc. And earthquakes and the like are in biblical prophecy (like birth pains for the earth). God tests us to strengthen our faith. Tests are a part of life. Do you ever test your children? And when I have more time than I do today I will explain Jesus’ death on the cross to you if you’d like to really understand it. (Why do I have to be so covered up at work today?!)
The also removed reincarnation from the bible because they didn’t want people to give up and commit suicide when things get tough.
Who is this “they” and where in the world did you hear that? From Dan Brown?
See, that’s where I have a problem with christianity, FM. If it’s true, then why hide it? Who’s hiding anything??? I do not understand.
Why would the all-powerful, life-saving truth need to be hidden? Seems illogical to me. That’s another of man’s inventions to explain all the editing, adding, and deleting we’ve done over the millenia.
Understand that Satan wants to destroy the church and uses many clever ways to try and accomplish that. You need to go back to the original text instead of the edited bible versions that are out there by the way.
Multiple studies were done on post-abortion trauma by people who badly wanted to find some. C. Everett Koop, for one. And they didn’t.
I could show you a great number of studies that do show the P.A.S.S. trauma.
By Chilao
March 29, 2006 03:32 PM | Link to this
The Masada suicides were in 72 C.E., not long after Jesus would have been crucified, say 35 years.
By Supporter of Moose
March 29, 2006 03:33 PM | Link to this
Technically speaking, the hypotenuse of the summation of the methodology of said subject is realistically a caustic measure under which one FatMoose is accurate and the others of lesser intelligence are salacious and counterfactual to which one may or mayn’t become aware under the tenure of the great Moose.
And so we find, then, that those lunar modules who were partakers in the experiment determining the breadth of the structure proliferated under which assignment the progeneration of the propagation of the procrastination will gather their effuse and their refuse.
Do not bother with these habiliments, Oh Moose. Never shall they kumtux your vast understanding of the abortion experience. They are mere cretins, tomfools, oafs, schnooks, dullards. You art the President of Mensa. These fools are so far beneath you.
By FatMoose
March 29, 2006 03:34 PM | Link to this
Actually FM, I would have to say that the physical ramifications of the caustic cyborgs, bring an element of existence to the flux of the hypothesis being deliberated currently.
Laughed out loud at that one;) Partially bc it makes sense too.
But I put to you: What brings this “element of existence to the flux of the hypothesis” and what is this element?
By Whiley
March 29, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this
Zack likes women?
By FatMoose
March 29, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this
ummm…FM…you never deliver an unsolicited response??? This is a blog, which consists of opinions to people who do and do not want the input.
And I thought we agreed not to interact? That it was useless?
Lets return to that.
By GOB
March 29, 2006 03:36 PM | Link to this
I agree that the number of ill-effected women could be low but a bill that would make it manditory to explain all the possible outcomes could ONLY be a good thing
This black/white/absolute thinking is what I oppose - on any side of an arguement.
To say that something can ONLY be a good thing seems to be taking a black/white/absolute stand on the argument, dont you think?
By chuck
March 29, 2006 03:37 PM | Link to this
Actually Kimmie, it does nothing of the sort. I don’t just pull verses out of the Bible willy-nilly. When I quote scripture, it is because they apply directly to the topic being discussed. I don’t take verses out of context. I research the scripture and only apply it when it is appropriate to do so. Scripture taken out of context cannot support a point. When taken as a whole, it is easy to understand God’s Word because it is perfectly consistent. You don’t understand it because you don’t study it. You haven’t been taught how to read or study scripture.
So, while the words may have actually been found in the Bible, the meaning you attached to those words certainly cannot be found anywhere in the Bible.
By Mara
March 29, 2006 03:39 PM | Link to this
Renee - You are my “hero of the day” for 2:55 dictionary post. I wish I had thought to do that :^)
Kimberly - are you sure that the guy wasn’t Zack? LOL!!
By Chilao
March 29, 2006 03:41 PM | Link to this
Is that element on the periodic table? Let me guess, it’s a gas in its normal state.
sorry, could NOT resist. LOL
By Whiley
March 29, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this
Julia the earth is proven to be billions of years old just on the soil (carbon?) testing. I wish I could remember exactly how/what they tested. It was a recent Discovery show. And aren’t dinosaur bones clearly at least a few million years old? The bible can quote what everybody said & did back then, but OOP forgot about all those dino’s.
By FatMoose
March 29, 2006 03:43 PM | Link to this
LOL! It’s a public blog, FatMonkey. I’m sooo sorry to be “addressing” you, your majesty! If you don’t like it, kindly exuant stage right, post haste! Because I promise you, as long as you are here masquerading as an educated and enlightened intellectual, I will be here to ridicule you, and point out the blatant hypocrisy of your woefully unsupportable arrogance.
OK.
Two posts in and there is: - Name calling (but this is different right?) - Sarcasm (but this is different right?) - And condescending tones galore (but, again, this is different right?)
Thanks for proving my point about you.
So, now j27 is confirmed along with renee, and JBM which have resorted to some level of personal attack - and who are, ironically, THE ONES that have an issue with me being condescending in replying to those atributes.
By RF
March 29, 2006 03:43 PM | Link to this
I’m just seeing my Granny’s face right now, shaking her sweet head and saying “well, bless his heart”. She usually said that in reference to this guy Rufus who wandered around her town when I was a kid mumbling about the end of the world. He just talked and talked and seemed perfectly happy in his own reality.
HEY- now I see why this blog seems so familiar to me!!!
By FatMoose
March 29, 2006 03:45 PM | Link to this
My comment the other week to Jack about living in a trailer was in response to him stating I have sick relations with my nieces/nephews, but that is different right?
By Jack
March 29, 2006 03:46 PM | Link to this
Yes I’m somewhat ignorant for asking this: Adam & Eve had to children, both male. Where did the other females come from that appeared later?
By GOB
March 29, 2006 03:47 PM | Link to this
You haven’t been taught how to read or study scripture.
What makes reading or studying the scripture different from reading or studying any other book? I mean in a real-world, looking at the pages way.
By chuck
March 29, 2006 03:50 PM | Link to this
NO While E. Coyote,
The earth has certainly NOT been PROVEN to be millions of years old. You apparently are thinking of radio carbon dating which supposedly can date objects up to several thousands of years old. I’m not going to get into the whole “age of the earth debate” again, but there are many scientists who believe that the age of the earth is MUCH younger. Since nobody was there to record it, it really cannot be proven.
By Scalia
March 29, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this
This blog is so cyclical. It always goes back to abortion, religion, and homosexuality.
Chuck, I have to give you props. The discussion on immigrants on Monday or Tuesday was a good discussion on your part.
As for the Fatmoose thing, being a regular, yeah, JBM, etc. do have a point. At one point, your daughter was arguing with Whiley or Iozen. She called them bitter, angry women or something like that.
By Renee
March 29, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this
Okay, I have laughed so hard today!!!! These posts are priceless!!! Hilarious!!
FM - Ummm…I haven’t personally attacked you at all. I have merely responded to some of the comments which you have made. I am allowed right??? And yes, I had chosen not to interact with you, but you provided me with an uncanny sense of entertainment today. Thanks. I may or may not respond to you any more after this.
By RF
March 29, 2006 03:53 PM | Link to this
GOB- you have to be taught (aka brainwashed) so as not to ask too many logical questions that can’t be answered. It’s a perfect document inspired by a perfect god and perfectly maintained by ignorant, sinful humans for a few thousand years. Can’t imagine how we could find anything wrong with it!!
By The72John
March 29, 2006 03:55 PM | Link to this
So, now j27 is confirmed along with renee, and JBM which have resorted to some level of personal attack - and who are, ironically, THE ONES that have an issue with me being condescending in replying to those atributes.
Actually, MooseDroppings, it’s your hypocrisy that I have a problem with. The fact that you constantly call people out for doing the same things that you regularly do.
I KNOW that I’m an arrogant, cocky, sometimes condescending, religious-fanatic-hating, argumentative, quarelsome, bad-tempered jackass on this blog. You, on the other hand, claim some high-ground that you have no business claiming, because you are also an arrogant, condescending, argumentative, quarlesome jackass.
The only real difference between you and me, besides my years of education and your years of attending Star Trek conventions, is that I can spell, put together well-constructed paragraphs, cite sources that back my arguments, and occasionally remove the stick from my a*.
By Mara
March 29, 2006 03:57 PM | Link to this
Almost quittin’ time, so instead of rebutting or commenting on Julia’s long post I’ll just say this. Not being a formal theologian this is my understanding - The Bible is a compilation of supposedly biographic and autobiographic historical stories. Some recount dreams and/or visions, some are personal accounts of things seen and experience. Compiled by the founders of what would eventually turn into the Catholic Church (and no, Dan Brown wasn’t one of them). It was these folks who decided which accounts made the cut and which didn’t. They provided translators and researchers also, which means they could adulterate the texts, add false information, or even completely ignore relevant but unpopular stories.
and to this - You need to go back to the original text instead of the edited bible versions that are out there by the way - Julia, how many laymen do you know with access to the Dead Sea scrolls and Gnostic texts? How many folks here on this blog feel up to translating the Aramaic and/or latin into english? Clever, clever satan to lock away the original manuscripts so that only people like you and Zack could ascertain the authenticity of Christianity. How droll. But as long as you are happy, more power to ya.
Outta here folks. Hugs to my blog buddies :-)
By GOB
March 29, 2006 03:58 PM | Link to this
RF - Well, now that I know that, it all makes perfect sense. It’s all coming together for me…
By FatMoose
March 29, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this
To say that something can ONLY be a good thing seems to be taking a black/white/absolute stand on the argument, dont you think?
I was talking about information - so no, more (accurate) information is always a good thing.
So, you think that the omission of information pertaining to a situation you are can be benign or good? I agree that it could make a decision more difficult - but I would always think that a more difficult decision but informed is better than easy/misinformed.
By Chilao
March 29, 2006 04:03 PM | Link to this
Whiley - com’on man, get with the program, the first chapter of Genesis is no longer to be considered literal fact, it is merely Symbolism for the beginnigs.
And to answer Jack’s (again, LOL) comment about the two sons, no, they did not have incestous relations with the mom(Eve) or sisters, they reproduced with the next tribe over, that were not part of this Symbolism thing.
That is at least how it(Genesis I) has been adjusted in my life-time, as science learns more and more. I actually heard a rabbi on TV discussing the fact that the Adam/Eve story was now merely Symbolic. Went against everything I had ever been taught, but heh, I’m flexible. LOL
By GOB
March 29, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this
FM - I wasnt arguing your point in my response, just pointing out how in one sentence you claim that something (and it really doesnt matter what it is you are claiming - could be that the sky is blue) could ONLY be good, but your very next sentence says you have problems with people making things black/white/absolute issues “on any side of an argument.”
Just pointing out an interesting argument you made…
By Jack
March 29, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this
John you do realize credibility is lost when you call names.
Moose. I was out of line with that comment about the relationship between you and your nieces. Sorry.
By Julia
March 29, 2006 04:08 PM | Link to this
Whiley-there are creatures in the bible such as behemoth and leviathan (sp?). Maybe one of these were referring to dinosaurs. Will have to research that one.
By Confused
March 29, 2006 04:12 PM | Link to this
Moose, don’t you know that you’re not supposed to defend yourself or fight fire with fire. What’s good for the goose…well, the gander doesn’t like!!!!!!!!
By Jack
March 29, 2006 04:17 PM | Link to this
You mean what’s good for the Moose! LOL
By lozen
March 29, 2006 04:18 PM | Link to this
Watch out people! FatMoose is gonna get his teenage daughters on here in a few minutes to show you just how stupid you are. I’m sure they’re laughing at you already!
By Jack
March 29, 2006 04:21 PM | Link to this
Chilao. That question was for Chuck, Zack or Randy. Mainly Chuck. Dig Chuck dig.
By The72John
March 29, 2006 04:21 PM | Link to this
Moose, don’t you know that you’re not supposed to defend yourself or fight fire with fire. What’s good for the goose…well, the gander doesn’t like!!!!!!!!
As usual, the lurker-known-as-confused draws a poor conclusion. As I’ve said, I’ve no objection to people defending themselves or fighting fire with fire. I DO have objections to people who are fighting fire with fire claiming they have no fire, and criticizing others who are also using fire.
Duh.
By Nikita
March 29, 2006 04:24 PM | Link to this
Chirren, chirren. Is all this rancor really necessary?
FM and chuck and everyone else — we can examine when a fully-dependent, non-cognizant, biological entity may or may not become someone, and what the chances are at any given point of that entity progressing to birth. And that would certainly inform my decision about whether or not to seek termination of a pregnancy if I were pregnant, and should inform the guidelines that physicians follow when they give women care.
However, these issues would not change my mind about a woman’s right to choose whether or not she will bear a child. Because legal recognition of a fetus at any stage of development as having rights that a woman does not have — which is to say the right to self-determination, to health, to privacy in medical care, to kindness and respect and support — I cannot support. The fact is that women deserve to be treated as all other individuals on this planet. They don’t deserve to be institutionally denied their fundamental rights because other people have decided that while they don’t necessarily place any value on women, they place the utmost value on the contents of their wombs.
By Julia
March 29, 2006 04:24 PM | Link to this
Mara-I will get back with you on a few things tomorrow. I know it’s almost quittin’ time and also almost time for this blog to shut down for the night. You posed some good questions and I look forward to blogging with you tomorrow.
Jack-I still can’t bring myself to go back to Taco Bell! LOL
FM-Thanks for the encouraging words. I appreciate it.
Where did JBM go? Maybe she can help with some of the bible questions as well. (I really hope work is slow tomorrow!)
By FatMoose
March 29, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this
Just pointing out an interesting argument you made…
I was specifically refering to “people making things black/white/absolute issues “on any side of an argument;” not a fact.
Read the blog today and see how many names I spewed; or deliberate sarcasm. At which point should I consider this inane? Really, the above should be understood by someone of decent intelligence, but you deliberately chose not to understand the point or truely do not understand it.
So at this point I get to make a judgement call on whether you were being condescending, or ignorant. It is that simple and not meant to be hurtfull, although it may be (I cannot control others feelings). I tend to choose that the person is ignorant since that is the lesser of the evils.
To wrap this up - I have recieved nothing from this last volley, although I understand your point that “the sky is blue” is an absolute statement that is also correct. There is no reason, for me at least, to go through the hoops we have in order to understand that point - and more-over, it sheds no light on the topic in which was being discussed nor a new one.
In my normal circles, the person I am debating with would simply state that “You know there are absolute facts like sky is blue.” And I would reply, “Yes, yet I am making a point regarding HOW one thinks as a theme, not about one single item.” And then we could have continued the remaining 45min talking about SOMETHING NEW.
By Monica
March 29, 2006 04:30 PM | Link to this
Wow! I think all of us can agree on one thing: we all have lots to say!
Whiley, I don’t know if you would like to hear my explanation of why the Earth has been proven to be billions of years old, but here goes…
According to Genesis, God made the birds of the air and the animals to roam the Earth. He made man and woman. He did not place eggs to hatch, or create a boy and a girl. If He created man instead of boy, and birds instead of eggs, it stands to reason that He also made the Earth “old.” He made rivers and riverbeds with evidence of years of erosion. He created mountains instead of hills that formed after millions of years.
Of course, I have no proof to substantiate this, just my “logic” - take it for what you think it’s worth. I’m not asking you to believe it; I just wanted to tell you what I believe.
I love the beauty of free will. It’s ironic but I could describe myself as pro-choice as well: the choice to follow Christ or the choice not to follow Christ.
RF and Net, I think the importance of church is to surround yourself with others who accepted Christ and to strive to be more like him. To make a Forest Gumpish statement: Mama said that the best way to stay out of trouble is to avoid situations that will get you into trouble. If I surround myself with people who are trying to emulate Christ, then maybe my chances of messing up will go down (unless you hang with the preacher’s kid - ha ha). I don’t think that you will go to Hell if you don’t go to church; conversely, going to church doesn’t guarantee you a spot in Heaven. That’s God’s place to judge, not anyone elses.
So why are there so many hypocrits in church? Because all church members are imperfect humans who attempt to follow Christ.
Sorry for the long post; I hope some of you see why I go to church and believe in Christ.
By Justin
March 29, 2006 04:30 PM | Link to this
I am behind this week…
Chuck, you were right on target with your March 28, 2006 12:12 p.m. post!
By The72John
March 29, 2006 04:41 PM | Link to this
So, Justin…Chuck was “right on target”? Let’s look at just one part of that right-wing rant.
The illegals who take those jobs work OFF THE BOOKS for less money. They depress wages and YES, they increase the unemployment and UNDEREMPLOYMENT of Americans. I haven’t seen the studies that give actual numbers but I have heard those studies referred to on GMA and other news programs
Chuck’s version seems to place the blame on those darn illegals…now, do you think we should be blaming the guy who is just looking for a job, or the AMERICAN who is recruiting workers off the books to save money and line his own pocket?
Who is responsible for those jobs being lost?
By FatMoose
March 29, 2006 04:43 PM | Link to this
Nikita,
My voting position is Pro-choice; my ethical position is that we must always keep our finger on the pulse regarding this topic and I see that many people, on both sides, reel at this notion.
j27, I do not do what you guys do - Jack could back me on this if he chose to, but that is the issue I have with him: he does not do what he knows is right in certain situations to mitigate the emotion fallout that will reign (on purpose) on him. That is NOT what a man does, to use his arguement.
There is proof on each day’s blog of you spouting names and sarcasm. Your first week on here was a string of posts on how intelligent you were while being condescending from the get go - I resort to names rarely and last. But I do resort to, “ok, you cannot have this converastion bc you have too much emotional attachment to the topic still” quite frequently on here; and accurately if your calling names in the first 3 replies, or using ALL CAPS for your whole post (JBM/Renee).
We should duel sometime on wow - might be fun.
By Julia
March 29, 2006 04:43 PM | Link to this
If anyone wants to know more about the bible origin and translations check out this website:
http://www.obtflusa.org/Files/UnderstandingThePresentationandPreservationofGod’s_Word.htm
There are so many aspects of this issue I want to comment on but there simply isn’t the time or the room on this blog to go into. I will try to keep from the cut and paste stuff and just give links for you to check out if interested.
And I will try and condense some things for you tomorrow. I hope everyone has a great evening.
(And Jack, I’ll try and answer your question as well.):)
By Chilao
March 29, 2006 04:45 PM | Link to this
Sorry Jack. LOL (on the Zack/etc question)
that was one of my Mom’s more difficult questions from me. LOL
By Just Being Me
March 29, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this
Okay, let me make something clear. I don’t dislike FM. There is one person and one person only that I dislike on this blog, and I think we all know who that is.
That said, I think there are about five categories of people here, as it relates to intelligence: there are the people who are obviously intelligent (ex. RF), those who are of average intelligence (ex. Me :-)), those who are obviously unintelligent (Michael H.), those who many feel are unintelligent (ex. Randy), and those who haven’t really contributed enough to any discussion to show whether or not they are intelligent (ex. any newbie). Of course, this is all my opinion, hence my use of the phrase “I think.”
My problem with FM is only that he almost always makes these really broad, sweeping generalizations like “simpletons will ask….” or “none of the people here know how to debate…,” etc. Those comments are obviously condescending, and often times unprovoked. What’s worse, in my opinion, is that FM is not exceptionally intelligent. At best, he has average intelligence, but loves to call people unintelligent, and at the very same time, in the very same breath, berates namecallers for calling names!
I don’t know if there is ONE SINGLE person here that can say that they haven’t sensed the condescending tone in FM’s writing in a place where it was totally unprovoked.
I don’t know if there is one person here that hasn’t heard all the nonsense about “the only reason I come here is to get my daily entertainment…” etc.
Like my mom always said, and I believe I’ve said the same to satan, “everybody can’t be wrong, baby.” Every time I got in trouble for talking in class, I would swear that I wasn’t talking. I believed in my heart that my teachers were just out to get me… that they hated me or wanted (for some reason that, at the time, made all the sense in the world) to get me in trouble. Well, Mom would always say, “All* the teachers can’t be out to get you. All the teachers can’t be wrong.”
John’s delivery may be questionable, but I don’t think anyone here would question his intelligence. John is clearly one of the more intelligent folks here. Renee is also intelligent. I’m reasonably intelligent. Gob is highly intelligent, as are Mara, and Scalia.
Those are just a few of the folks that agree about FM. I guess we’re alllllllll wrong.
By The72John
March 29, 2006 04:52 PM | Link to this
j27, I do not do what you guys do - Jack could back me on this if he chose to, but that is the issue I have with him: he does not do what he knows is right in certain situations to mitigate the emotion fallout that will reign (on purpose) on him. That is NOT what a man does, to use his arguement.
Actually, you are being disingenous yourself. If you review, you will see that I lose my cool only over certain topics and generally only with a certain type of person. You CHOOSE to characterize my every post this way because it suits your purposes. Selective reading.
By Just Being Me
March 29, 2006 04:54 PM | Link to this
All caps? When have I done that? Actually, I prefer to make use of bold and italics, and when it’s really necessary, my personal favorite: the bold, italic. :-)
Julia, I’m right here. What were Mara’s questions? Pleeeeease don’t make me scroll up and read ‘em!! LOL! You know I have ADD!
By FatMoose
March 29, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this
Just Being Me,
“You may be right, I may be crazy; but it just may be a lunitic you are looking for” is more accurate though.
Or it could be that you people that call names and use sarcasm as a means of communication have an alliance of a sort, which is natural in these random settings, in order to justify each others actions. For example, the Whiley/Jack or the JBM/Renee symbiotic - like alcoholics at a bar: “Youre great JBM,” “Youre great too Renee…” “See we have no problems!” “No, we surely do not! Gulp.”
By Whiley
March 29, 2006 05:03 PM | Link to this
Chuck, dino’s were around MUCH earlier than the when the bible’s version of the world happened. And why is all of a sudden parts of the bible not meant to be taken literal, but other parts are WORD FOR WORD.(only when you can’t answer a question?) For instance the beginning, or about the dinos, the soil tests that PROOVE time. I wasn’t saying it WAS carbon dating, but something like that, just can’t remember exactly what it was called.
By lozen
March 29, 2006 05:03 PM | Link to this
Nikita, your 4:24 post was excellent. Whiley, yours from yesterday where you stated you are always for women was super also. Julia, you seem like a nice woman but … you can claim the bible is truth/great until the cows come home and it won’t change the facts. The bible is a collection of myths and folktales about the Hebrews and the early days of christianity. Those tales have been translated (incorrectly) many, many times. A group of bishops decided in the early days of catholicism which books to leave in and which to leave out. They also made the decision to claim that Mary was a virgin although there had been much debate among different groups of christians about that up until then. (The book of Philip which they left out is by far the most intelligent of all of those early books IMO..) In those myths women are treated like slaves, spoken of as totally insignificant, and the bible has been used against us in every step we have taken toward freedom and equality. The bible is very bad for women especially and we should stay away from it. It is filled with yahweh’s people slaughtering other groups of people to his pleasure. It is filled with ideas that any grammar school child now knows cannot be based on truth. It is filled with god striking people dead because they ask a question or don’t do what the big old mean daddy/judge told them to do. BTW, questioning Mara’s spirit is quite silly when yours can so easily be questioned.
By Netbanker
March 29, 2006 05:09 PM | Link to this
I’m going to have to side with RF on the ‘hidden truth’ thing. The only reasons to hide a truth or to make it a matter of faith are CONTROL and POWER. Those who know the secret to where/how the truth is hidden control access to it which immediately gives them power.
I think there is a great misperception in the Christian community about the beginnings of the religion being harmonious. We seem to think that it was only the Reformation that resulted in the numerous Protestant variations on faith. If one looks at the gnostic gospels and variations in ‘the church’ prior to Roman Catholic domination and revision of The Bible and church doctrine one sees that the church was more like a shrub than the ‘tree’ we know of today. There were many variations on belief and greater inclusion of women than is accepted today. Of course the Christian religions of today were ‘birthed’ from the Catholic Church was is a patriartical organization. Are we so naive as to think that they wouldn’t have changed a few things to make sure that grip on power was firm? Just look at the history of that group with the introduction of personal confession to a priest and the selling of indulgences or even to the sexual abuse cover up scandal of our present times and we’re to HONESTLY believe that this organization hasn’t ALWAYS been self-serving?
I must admit that I find if very odd that there is a roughly 20 year gap in the life Jesus between the ages of 12 (on the steps of the temple) and when he hit the big time. It would also be completely at odds culturally that he wasn’t married or have children. The Bible doesn’t really say anything about his personal life. How could he truly have been sent by God to have the full human experience without having had sex, known the love of a spouse, known what it is like to have children, etc? Are we to really believe that he lived through 33 years as a Virgin himself?
By Jack
March 30, 2006 07:29 AM | Link to this
“Jack could back me on this if he chose to, but that is the issue I have with him: he does not do what he knows is right in certain situations to mitigate the emotion fallout that will reign (on purpose) on him. That is NOT what a man does, to use his arguement.”
Moose. Please splain.
By Jack
March 30, 2006 07:53 AM | Link to this
Well I re-read it. Moose, I don’t like to argue religion very much because it is futile. I’m here for fun. Many times I start to respond to something and I hit delete because I know it would be for naught. I’ve let other posters get me angry and it’s not worth it. I AM a man and would prefer to “do what is right” in person and not on a blog. People are a whole lot different in person than on the phone or net. I doubt you or John are so caustic in person. (if you were you would be well versed in fisticuffs) BTW I am not afraid of any emotional fallout unless it comes from the Mrs.
By Brian Curtis
March 30, 2006 07:57 AM | Link to this
When did “Woman-to-Woman” get retitled “Chuck’s Personal Preaching Grounds for Missionaries in Training”?
And Chuck… you’re not doing too well in the course. Better hope Jesus grades on a curve.
By Monica
March 30, 2006 08:28 AM | Link to this
Can’t stay long today. I’m already feeling pathetic about myself because I am on Spring Break and am blogging!!
Net, RF, et al… I only skimmed through the posts yesterday, so I don’t know the entire discussion, but I don’t believe in a hidden truth. I believe that accepting Christ as your savior is what saves you. Christ said, I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the father except through me” (John 14:6). If there is someone who claims that there is a hidden truth and that you have to go to church to get it, he or she is misinformed. Other apostles said that faith without works is dead, meaning that if you believe in God then you will want to do good in His name, but there is no other truth but Christ.
I can understand your skepticism, Net. I can honestly say…I don’t know. I do know that it is possible for a person to reach adulthood and be a virgin! It is VERY difficult, but it is possible! I was a virgin when I married at 25! So it’s not out of the question to think that Jesus abstained from sex. As for the family/wife, I can’t answer that because I honestly don’t know. But I don’t see that as important in the scheme of things.
Hope y’all have a great Thursday and Friday - we are off to enjoy our Break. :)
By Whiley
March 30, 2006 08:39 AM | Link to this
Don’t forget the whole virgin Mary deal. Mary had sex without being married & got pregnant. Somebody came up with that “pregnant by God” thing so she wouldn’t be stoned to death. Actually that was a pretty clever cover, considering people back then would believe in anything.
By Just Being Me
March 30, 2006 09:02 AM | Link to this
Or it could be that you people that call names and use sarcasm as a means of communication have an alliance of a sort, which is natural in these random settings, in order to justify each others actions. For example, the Whiley/Jack or the JBM/Renee symbiotic - like alcoholics at a bar: “Youre great JBM,” “Youre great too Renee…” “See we have no problems!” “No, we surely do not! Gulp.”
Uhh, yeah. Renee, John and I sit around encouraging one another to make up false claims about you, and then we justify those false claims and encourage each other’s denial about how unintelligent we really are. Yep. Then, we decided to strongarm Scalia, Gob and Mara, forcing them to come to the “Let’s-randomly-pick-a-highly-intelligent-blogger-to-lie-on; Let’s-tell-everyone-he’s-unintelligent-and-condescending-even-though-the-records-show-the-exact-opposite” party. That’s exactly how it happened. You are SO smart to have figured that one out.
By The72John
March 30, 2006 09:05 AM | Link to this
To be fair, Jack, in real life no one says the kinds of things that bring out the “caustic” side, either. My conservative Christian co-workers know I’m gay, and they like me anyway. By the same token, I don’t go up and tell them what I think about religion. Because I know them as people and not as a faceless representative of a particular political philosophy, we treat each other like people. Why, I bet even ole Chuck doesn’t prosyletize to his co-workers and berate any gay colleagues he may have.
By Just Being Me
March 30, 2006 09:08 AM | Link to this
Jack:
j27, I do not do what you guys do - Jack could back me on this if he chose to, but that is the issue I have with him: he does not do what he knows is right in certain situations to mitigate the emotion fallout that will reign (on purpose) on him. That is NOT what a man does, to use his arguement.
I don’t think he was talking about the abortion or religious argument.
It was one of those “you people” sort of remarks… just like all the other ones. He was saying to John that he does not call names like “you people” do, and that you, Jack, could back him on that if you weren’t so spineless and afraid of the backlash that would come from all your fellow big, bad, gun-totin’ bloggers. He went on to say that this is the problem he has with you; that you will not take his side when you know he is right because you are fearful of the emotion[al] fallout (whatever the heck that is) that will occur.
By Just Being Me
March 30, 2006 09:17 AM | Link to this
If I read the word “caustic” one more time…
By Chilao
March 30, 2006 09:21 AM | Link to this
Hope y’all have a great Thursday and Friday - we are off to enjoy our Break. :)
Monica really off to Spring Break instead of that Bloggers Anonymous meeting? She is definitely addicted. LOL But the kids do need a fun spring break don’t they, wouldn’t be any fun for them at a BA meeting.
to comment on the current train here, some people take both this blog and probably their life as well, WAY TOO SERIOUSLY. “just” my $0.02. (And I can probably relate since I used to be much younger, and more serious and more retentive…… LMAO)
By Chilao
March 30, 2006 09:24 AM | Link to this
That word (adj)
Synonyms: corrosive, acid, acidic, corroding, burning Synonyms: sarcastic, scathing, mordant, astringent, cutting, biting, acerbic, acid, razor-sharp, unkind
Antonym: gentle
now that’s a new one, MORDANT. back to encarta for me. LOL
By The72John
March 30, 2006 09:25 AM | Link to this
JBM, that caustic remark was uncalled for. If we want to use the word caustic in a post, then we are going to use the word caustic. I feel that you are being very caustic by objecting so caustically to the use of the word caustic. What is it about “caustic” that brings out this caustic side of you? Please, I hope that in the future you will be a little less caustic when confronted with caustic people who choose to use the word “caustic” when the circumstances call for it.
I’m just curious about the kind of reaction you have to caustic. When someone says caustic, does it cause a tic, or does it just flat out infuriate you? I realize that I’m being caustic here, but I feel that my defense of the word caustic is justifiable.
By Chilao
March 30, 2006 09:27 AM | Link to this
mor·dant [ máwrd’nt ]
adjective
Definitions: 1. sarcastic: sharply sarcastic or scathingly critical 2. corrosive: having a corrosive effect
noun (plural mor·dants) Definitions: 1. industry substance that fixes dyes: a substance that fixes a dye in and on textiles or leather by combining with the dye to form a stable insoluble compound lake 2. graphic arts acid used in etching: a corrosive substance used to etch treated areas on a metal plate
[15th century. < French, present participle of mordre “to bite” < Latin mordere]
By FatMoose
March 30, 2006 09:28 AM | Link to this
NetB,
Let me explain what I was refering to when I said god is hidden: I am not saying, nor think that, god plays hide/seek. What I think that the verses that refer to this are saying is simpley that people will change the bible for their own agenda, but one can still find the truth in it. The same goes for beatles lyrics and art - there is truth within, but you will have to look and it will always reflect the origin.
It most closly follows chaos theory in that whatever creates an event can be seen in some form throughout the process. And therefore, no matter what humans do to use divitity as a personal vehical, it will always retain some echos of the original message.
By Just Being Me
March 30, 2006 09:29 AM | Link to this
LOL @ Chilao’s “that word”
Hey I learned something today. I didn’t know astringent was anything more than that stuff I put on my face after I wash it.
Acerbic was a 6th or 7th grade vocab word.
By Renee
March 30, 2006 09:32 AM | Link to this
LOL John
By Jack
March 30, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this
Chilao. Your .02 is worth more than many others .02.
JBM & John. Love you both.
By Just Being Me
March 30, 2006 09:43 AM | Link to this
Okay, on a more serious note. I probably am guilty of taking life way too seriously most days. And though there are definitely a couple of people here who get under my skin, there’s only been one person that has caused me to take this blog seriously.
I think it’s pretty clear where I stand on most issues related to religion. I take my relationship with Christ very seriously, and I take my calling in life very seriously. Accordingly, I take every opportunity to share the love of Christ seriously. When I see someone compromising my ability to introduce others to the person that miraculously changed me, I take that seriously too. It doesn’t annoy me, or get under my skin - it hurts me deeply (even if that person is an anonymous, faceless character on a local blog).
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. I have shed tears over some of the things that have been said on this silly little blog. I have lost sleep over people misrepresenting the Christ that I know. I strive daily to encourage and uplift people who may not have true joy and may not have ever known true peace. I strive to motivate, strengthen, edify, build up, comfort and enlighten believers and non-believers alike, to the best of my ability. And, it really sucks to have someone come along and undo all of my work with the pointing of one judgmental finger or the throwing of one stone.
So, yes. I admit I do take this blog too seriously at times.
By Chilao
March 30, 2006 09:45 AM | Link to this
Thank you, Jack. I generally in life, and on this blog, try to stay out of any animosity-related stuff. think we get enough of that in the world. LOL(sorta)
By Jack
March 30, 2006 09:47 AM | Link to this
It causes a tic with me. I hate that.
By Just Being Me
March 30, 2006 09:47 AM | Link to this
AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
~shaking uncontrollably~
By Just Being Me
March 30, 2006 09:48 AM | Link to this
AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
~shaking uncontrollably~
By Just Being Me
March 30, 2006 09:51 AM | Link to this
Reminds me of when we were younger, my parents would give my sisters and I a “word of the week” and we’d get a gold star sticker every time we used it in a sentence correctly. You can imagine how tired a person could grow of hearing 5 girls using the word “pauper” in various sentences every day for a week…
By RF
March 30, 2006 09:51 AM | Link to this
Could you guys PLEASE come and teach my ninth graders some vocabulary??
JBM- what you gon’ do, slap somebody for ‘that word’?? LOL I got my face popped good at the kitchen table when I was 21 for using “THE word” in my momma’s house (starts with an F- and you can guess the rest). My head spun like a top!!
By Just Being Me
March 30, 2006 09:52 AM | Link to this
Jack, love you too, man
By Renee
March 30, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this
JBM?????
Maybe a blogging vacation is in order??? LOL
By Renee
March 30, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this
No love for me Jack????
By chuck
March 30, 2006 09:54 AM | Link to this
In response to Justin you said:
Chuck’s version seems to place the blame on those darn illegals…now, do you think we should be blaming the guy who is just looking for a job, or the AMERICAN who is recruiting workers off the books to save money and line his own pocket?
That statement is a little bit disengenuous, because you know that I answered that in a post on the 27th in direct response to you. My exact words were:
72john, I don’t take the position that you assume…I think companies who knowingly OR unknowingly hire illegal aliens should be PROSECUTED. I think EVERY agency that receives ANY federal money should be required to report illegals. Every CITIZEN should be required to report illegals.
So yes, those comments were RIGHT ON TARGET. Thanks Justin.
By RF
March 30, 2006 09:57 AM | Link to this
uh-oh!! JBM’s got the spirit again. Look out folks, she’s ‘bout to be rolling in the aisle!!
That, or she just finished her tax return and found out just how much Uncle Sam is demanding!! LOL
By Whiley
March 30, 2006 09:59 AM | Link to this
I thought we were supposed to be blogging about body fat.
?
By RF
March 30, 2006 10:00 AM | Link to this
Soooo, did anyone hear about Cynthia McKinney?? She finally got rid of the Princess Leia hairdo, and a capitol security guard didn’t recognize her and chased her down for bypassing the metal detectors. Ms. McKinney proceeded to punch the guard!!
By Chilao
March 30, 2006 10:01 AM | Link to this
JBM - I cannot find
AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
in encarta. even tried without the exclamation marks.
LMAO (NO, I’m not THAT stupid)
By Chilao
March 30, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this
Whiley - that was Monday morning. Okay, I’ll stop, actually have work to do.
By Just Being Me
March 30, 2006 10:06 AM | Link to this
Hey, y’all wanna play a game to lift some of this seriousness?
We used to play it at sleepovers when I was a teen, but it’s still kinda fun.
You can play with a variation of questions, so for example, the question could be “What’s grosser than gross?” And a person answers the question, and then asks “What’s grosser than that?” And you just keep on answering the question until you get bored with that one.
Another question is “What’s more embarassing than embarassing?” The first person answers, and then asks, “What’s more embarassing than that?”
Or, what’s funnier than funny?
Or, what tastes nastier than nasty?
By Just Being Me
March 30, 2006 10:07 AM | Link to this
What’s grosser than gross?
Sliding down a ten foot razor blade and landing in a pool of alcohol.
What’s grosser than that?
By Just Being Me
March 30, 2006 10:10 AM | Link to this
RF, when I looked up, and I seed Cynthia, I knowed dat dey is a God!!!! LOL! A little Color Purple humor! Seriously though, when I saw that she finally got a new ‘do, I raised my hands and shouted out praises to God above!!!!
By The72John
March 30, 2006 10:11 AM | Link to this
That’s great, Chuck, but perhaps you could try responding to the actual portion I quoted?
The fact remains that your postings on that topic consistently place blame on the illegal immigrants, not on those who are employing them and bringing them in to the country. For all of your claims of Christian charity, you treat those people with the same scorn and disdain that you treat everyone else.
I, on the other hand, believe that people are people, regardless of their nationality and possesion of a green card. While I agree that having undocumented people in this country is a serious problem, my solution is not to clap people in irons and ship them back to the poverty they were trying to escape. Rather, I think we need to do what we can to discourage additional undocumented people from pouring in, and try to document the ones that are here already. Get them into the system, paying taxes, etc.
Your way is to dismiss them all as hardened criminals and throw the book at them. Which do you think Jesus would do, Chuck?
By Just Being Me
March 30, 2006 10:11 AM | Link to this
Chilao, everybody knows that Encarta has a 12% error rate. Duh!!! You should’ve looked in Merriam Webster.
By Renee
March 30, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this
I read about that. She looks soooo much better! So much better!!!
By Chilao
March 30, 2006 10:22 AM | Link to this
Encarta cannot have any error rate, think it is by Microsoft and they KNOW WHAT WE WANT, remember?
somehow a new car stalling in the middle of the interstate, during rush hour, comes to mind, but we DID want that, didn’t we? LOL
I’ll have to add Merriam’s to my reference fave folder.
By Jack
March 30, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this
Renee’. I love you too. (and all the other fine ladies on this blog)
For all of you: XOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOXOX!
By Jack
March 30, 2006 10:29 AM | Link to this
I do have a favorite and she knows who she is. :)
By The72John
March 30, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this
Oh geeze, it’s a love fest. I’m outta here…
;-)
By FatMoose
March 30, 2006 10:32 AM | Link to this
Get them into the system, paying taxes, etc.
FYI - NPR had an analyst that stated that the notion that getting undocumented people into the system so they contribute taxes will actually cost us 3x the amount they are costing us now bc the amount of taxes they would provide would be greatly outweighed by the social services used by them.
Plus, we gave amnesty to 1.3mil in something like 1986 and all it did was spur on more immigrant to come here illegally. It increased the number of undocumented people to the tune of 6x within 3yrs.
The only solution I have heard that actually has NOT been attempted is long term enforcement of the laws we currently have to mitigate undocumented people from coming/staying through attrition and beefing up out borders.
Further info that is interesting: The US currently has 1.6mil people in the same education/class ranking as undocumented aliens that have given up totally on finding a job bc the jobs they are fit for pay below minimum wage BC the undocumented aliens run DOWN the acceptable $/hour.
This also translates into a company not having to be as efficient in other areas, therefore skewing fairness in the capitalist market and hurting other industries also.
By RF
March 30, 2006 10:37 AM | Link to this
What’s grosser than that?? How about falling a tub of superglue, climbing out and then falling in a tub of cow manure?
What’s grosser than that?
JBM/Renee- sho ‘nuf the girl needed a new ‘do!! I almost didn’t recognize her! Apparently neither did the capitol guard who grabbed her and got himself punched!! I mean really, who in their right mind would grab a sister by the arm and NOT expect to get flat knocked OUT?? LOLOL
By chuck
March 30, 2006 10:42 AM | Link to this
For someone who claims to be so intelligent, you sure ACT dense sometimes john. The point is The person to blame is the one(or two) who break(s) the law. If it is against the law to enter the country without permission, then you blame the person who entered without permission. If it is against the law to hire someone who entered without permission, then you blame the one who hired the person who entered without permission. I think BOTH are to blame. Is that clear enough?
As for what Jesus would do? It is answered in His Word:
Romans 13:1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
By Just Being Me
March 30, 2006 10:43 AM | Link to this
Ewwwwww RF!!! I doubt anyone can top that one!
By Renee
March 30, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this
RF - she was looooooooong overdue for a makeover!!!! She looks fantastic and damn near unrecognizable.
By chuck
March 30, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this
OH, and BTW, I don’t think they should be treated like “hardened criminals”. In fact, if you look back at my posts, the only thing that I have said is that they should be prosecuted. (This is called “due process”) If it is determined that they broke our laws, they should be returned to their country of origin. Simple as that. No vats ov boiling oil or hanging them by their thumbs…just follow the law.
By Archie
March 30, 2006 10:49 AM | Link to this
The McKinney incident is another example of where this exception-to-the-rules comes into play. Members of Congress should walk thru the checkpoint and have some identification because the guards at work that day maybe new to the job!!! Also members of Congress are human so they can get stupid too. I don’t live in Atlanta so I probably would have stopped the sista’ and I’m a brotha’. Everybody black,white,or green follow the rules and you don’t have chaos.
By GOB
March 30, 2006 10:50 AM | Link to this
Romans 13:1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
Does that mean god put Hitler in power? Maybe he really does blame the jews for what happened to Jesus….joking…
Is anyone really surprised that Paul wrote this, considering he was in the process of establishing his own authority over the christian churches.
By Julia
March 30, 2006 10:50 AM | Link to this
Hi everyone.
Some of the things from Fear Factor are coming to mind! LOL (Did you see some of the things those people had to EAT???)
By RF
March 30, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this
Archie- I bet she’s got a mean right hook!
By RF
March 30, 2006 10:59 AM | Link to this
GOB- I think Jim Jones used that same line of reasoning, and well, we all know better now than to drink the Kool-Aid!!
Julia- OH I would have sooooo thrown-up. Trump himself couldn’t pay me enough to eat bugs or worms!! I couldn’t watch the show because it made me gag!!
By Mara
March 30, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this
what’s grosser than that? - a cannibal passing his brother on the road?
By FatMoose
March 30, 2006 11:01 AM | Link to this
Julia,
(Did you see some of the things those people had to EAT???)
The thing that grossed me out the most was the deep-fried NY rats (hair, head, tail and all) which was then blended into a thick and chunky Rat-Shake that they had to chug down.
By The72John
March 30, 2006 11:04 AM | Link to this
Plus, we gave amnesty to 1.3mil in something like 1986 and all it did was spur on more immigrant to come here illegally. It increased the number of undocumented people to the tune of 6x within 3yrs.
Again, correlation does not equal causality. One can’t assume that because an influx of illegal immigrants followed Reagan’s amnesty that the same would happen were amnesty to be granted today. If we did work on increasing border security and enforcing immigration standards, an influx could be avoided or at least mitigated.
FYI - NPR had an analyst that stated that the notion that getting undocumented people into the system so they contribute taxes will actually cost us 3x the amount they are costing us now bc the amount of taxes they would provide would be greatly outweighed by the social services used by them.
I missed the last part of the segment on immigration last night, but I have to assume that this was the conclusion of one analyst? Since you mentioned chaos theory earlier, you must know that predicting the behavior of a complex system is more an exercise in identifying probabilities than in stating absolute outcomes. Two analysts with the same data could arrive at widely divergent conclusions.
Further info that is interesting: The US currently has 1.6mil people in the same education/class ranking as undocumented aliens that have given up totally on finding a job bc the jobs they are fit for pay below minimum wage BC the undocumented aliens run DOWN the acceptable $/hour
Yes, because companies are willing to violate the law and hire illegals at sub-standard wages. Again, the blame for this rests with the companies, not the workers. However, by documenting the undocumented, companies suddenly are forced to pay a fair wage again.
I also question your assertion that low labor costs translate into additional inefficiencies within a company. The goal of a company is to maximize shareholder value and profit. Inexpensive labor allows for greater profit - why should a company relax its standards elsewhere in the profit equation because they have lowered costs in labor?
There IS an affect on the general market, I agree. Companies willing to use illegal labor have created an illicit competitive advantage over competitors unwilling to do so.
By Renee
March 30, 2006 11:05 AM | Link to this
Yeah, fear factor is a bit much for me. I’m wayyyy too squeamish for that.
By Jack
March 30, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this
John. This isn’t the LOVE blog?
JBM. I will pass on that game. Already made Taco Bell bad for Julia. Besides, Mara or myself would win that one!
By The72John
March 30, 2006 11:13 AM | Link to this
The point is The person to blame is the one(or two) who break(s) the law. If it is against the law to enter the country without permission, then you blame the person who entered without permission. If it is against the law to hire someone who entered without permission, then you blame the one who hired the person who entered without permission. I think BOTH are to blame. Is that clear enough?
My comprehension of your position has never been the problem, Chuck. My problem is with your position. As always, your lack of compassion shows.
In the greater scheme of things, entering the country illegaly is not a serious offense, hence my earlier comparison with speeding. You see a criminal. I see desperate people who are willing to work hard for very little money. That’s the difference in you and me, Chuck. You claim to care about people, at least your strident proclamations of Christianity imply that you SHOULD care about people.
I actually DO care about people, regardless of their nation of origin. If someone commits a REAL crime, then by all means, ship them out. They’ve proved they don’t deserve to be here. But the majority, who work their fingers to the bone to be here - they have proved they deserve to stay.
I realize it’s easier for you to categorize and compartmentalize people. Actually showing concern for your fellow man is hard work. Oh, but I forgot. You do MISSION work. You MUST care.
By Mara
March 30, 2006 11:14 AM | Link to this
Jack - LOL!! I forgot about the “special” stew we made the other day! now that was pretty gross, LOL!
By kimberly
March 30, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this
Chuck, logistics please! Why do you people think you can pound your fist and demand what’s “right” without offering logistics? Hello!
How much would it cost to round up and prosecute 11 million people? Just a ballpark. Phase 1: The roundup. How many personnel to locate, go out, kick in doors and drag them into vans, and bring them to…. where? Special CAMPS? Jails are too full already. How much for the extra personnel, vans, “camps” and processing costs? Phase 2: Then you have to feed them all while they’re being processed through ridiculously clogged “courts.” What do you do with their American children while you lock up the parents? Pull them out of school? Again, ballpark numbers, and how long will that take? Phase 3: Deporting them, and then handling familes, children, and jobs that are now destroyed. How much will all this cost?
What do you think we should slash from our current (deficit) budgets to pay for it? Many programs have already been cut to the bone to pay private contractors to “feed our boys” in Iraq, and of course, for that bang-up job they did rebuilding the Gulf Coast! So… how much & where?
Perhaps we’re looking at this backwards. Maybe what little money we have left in the treaury (actually negative numbers means NO money, but that doesn’t stop the borrow & spend administration) should FIRST be focused toward securing our borders.
Just a few rational thoughts.
By FatMoose
March 30, 2006 11:19 AM | Link to this
The goal of a company is to maximize shareholder value and profit. Inexpensive labor allows for greater profit - why should a company relax its standards elsewhere in the profit equation because they have lowered costs in labor?
Right - but if they had to pay a fair %/hour for labor, companies would look HARDER at ways to continue maximizing shareholder value and not let it drop as a result of paying more $/hr. Any strain put on a company is fought by looking to cut cost in other places (better/updated machinery) and the company would have to look at investing in working smart - not working hard.
For example, it could cost the same to have 5 cheap laborers and a mule/till vs one skilled worker + updated machinery, but that takes investment in the future. The ability to make the quick buck will unfortunately win out if the opprotunity exists.
By The72John
March 30, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this
I never cease to be amazed by the facility with which some religious conservatives find ways to avoid Christ’s basic commandment. “This shall be the whole of the law…” or something like that, I believe? Yet no matter the issue, there’s always a reason why “Love thy neighbor” doesn’t apply to THIS situation, or THAT situation. Even though Christ said “THIS SHALL BE THE WHOLE OF THE LAW”, there’s always a verse or another (never something that Jesus said, by the way) that is used to justify NOT loving one’s neighbor.
Ah well…hypocrisy abounds.
By Jack
March 30, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this
Woof, woof!
By Just Being Me
March 30, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this
I can’t handle Fear Factor at all. My daughter and my mother both love that show. It started out okay, when they were accomplishing daring tasks like flying or swimming or jumping or letting dangerous insects crawl on them… but, I draw the line at ingesting anything other than tasteful food.
That goes beyond any fear factor… that’s just disgusting.
I’ve only seen one episode and in it, the contestants had to eat doughnuts with pigs blood filling, slug filling, and/or live crickets filling (if they were lucky, they got one that had real jelly filling - but at that point, I don’t even know if my mind would allow me to appreciate that! - and had to wash it down with curdled milk.
What fear does that overcome? It’s just plain disgusting, and it shows that some people would do anything for money.
By RF
March 30, 2006 11:24 AM | Link to this
kimberly— rational??!! You want rational thought…HERE??!! HAHAHAHAHA!
By chuck
March 30, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this
NetB, and JBM, Please read this entire post Your posts yesterday got me thinking about your basic philosophy concerning religion. While I am not claiming that I know exactly where you are coming from, I think there are some basic ideas that will help you (and particularly JBM) understand where I am coming from.
1) Most people never get deep enough into scripture to really understand it. They have ideas like “it was written by different men and interpreted by different men to make it say what they wanted it to say.” People who understand the Nature of God, would never make that statement. God is SOVEREIGN. Men don’t exert their will over Him. The cannon of scripture is exactly what God wanted to reveal to us. Nothing more and nothing less. If you realize that, you understand that there is not anything MISSING from the Word. God does NOT have to tell us WHY He did something or HOW He did something.
2) The Bible has to be studied as a WHOLE DOCUMENT. In order to understand scripture, you have to understand this concept. Yes there are verses that “stand alone” in meaning. For instance, John 3:16, but for the most part, verses have to be studied IN CONTEXT as part of the whole. One of the mistakes that marginal Christians and NON-Christians make is to just pull verses out and USE them to justify whatever position they have taken on an issue. I will often wait to post an answer to a question that I am unsure of until I have a chance to study and search scripture. Sometimes I ask others that may know morew about a particular topic than I do, but when it comes to the Bible, I am from Missouri…you have to show me IN CONTEXT. I don’t believe it because someone said it.
3)The Gospel is OFFENSIVE: In Matthew 10, Jesus said:
32”Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.
34”Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn ” ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw— 36a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[e]
37”Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
I could come in here and blow smoke, but that is NOT the Gospel. I don’t mean to beat anyone over the head with it, but I have deeply held, logical, scripture-based beliefs. Yes I love to argue…I always have, but nothing is more important than the Gospel Message. Sometimes I get rather CAUSTIC in my arguments…not my best character trait, but I am a “defender of the Faith” and I will defend it vigorously. I don’t apologize for that.
4) Sometimes the MESSAGE of the Gospel IS HIDDEN. The Bible says SEEK and ye shall FIND. The reason MOST people don’t understand the Bible, is because they are not SEEKING. I believe that if someone lays aside their pre-conceived notions about who God is and what He does, then they lay aside their own notions of what is right and wrong, GOD will reveal Himself to them through His WORD. We can’t come to God with OUR agenda on OUR terms.
I will add to this later, but I really wanted you to understand the basis for what I say on this blog.
By Just Being Me
March 30, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this
As usual, those are very good points, Kimberly.
John, I understand completely where you are coming from with ~ahem~ Chuck. But, I want you to be careful of implying that because a person feels immigrants should be prosecuted for breaking the law, they must lack compassion and love.
As I said before, I don’t have a definite opinion on this subject, but I do believe strongly that anyone who breaks the law should pay the price. I don’t believe immigrants should be mistreated. I acknowledge their contributions to this country (and I certainly acknowledge that almost all of us have ancestors who migrated to this country), and I am aware of the problems Kimberly raised, as well. Obviously, kicking them all out is not the answer. I agree with you that this is not a “serious” crime, in that illegally crossing the border does not cause any real physical danger to anyone.
At the same time, I don’t think that just because a person wants a better life for his/her family means that it’s okay for them to break the laws of another country to provide that better life… especially not when there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people that are patiently (or impatiently) waiting their turn.
If it ever comes to light that I don’t live in the district where my daughter goes to school, I fully expect to have her expelled from that school, and that I may be made to reimburse the school system for her education. Sure, I was only trying to do what is best for my child. I want her to get a better education, and have better opportunities, and a better life. But, that doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t have to pay a penalty for breaking a law (or rule).
By The72John
March 30, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this
We understand, Chuck, believe me, we do. You are an ugly, judgemental, spiteful human being, and you are one of those unfortunate souls who use religion as a bludgeon to justify that fact. People who recognize religion for what it truly is pity you, and hope that one day you will realize that using religion to validate your own lack of compassion and humanity is wrong.
By RF
March 30, 2006 11:37 AM | Link to this
chuck- WHY is it hidden? Why does it have to be hidden, if it’s the life altering soul-saving truth? I still think that’s man’s way of having an out to interpret. I think the Bible is very simple and direct and the truth isn’t hidden at all. It’s much less complex than man often makes it.
If you watch Springer a few times, you’ll see the sword of familial discord flying!!! (sorry, I just couldn’t resist the humor there- nothing personal!)
By Chilao
March 30, 2006 11:39 AM | Link to this
I heard this morning on NPR, in a commentary on the immigration issue, is that there were THREE prosecutions in one recent year(cannot remember the year, but it not a Bush vs Clinton issue, since both were rather lax in this area), for EMPLOYERS hiring illegals.
THREE prosecutions!
now that rat milk shake got me too sick to eat lunch later. LOL
By GOB
March 30, 2006 11:41 AM | Link to this
They have ideas like “it was written by different men and interpreted by different men to make it say what they wanted it to say.” … The cannon of scripture is exactly what God wanted to reveal to us. Nothing more and nothing less.
THe problem with this thinking is that the bible was, in fact, written by different men, and their writings have been altered and changed over the centuries. Scribes theological notes have ended up included. Entire stories have been added to the bible over the centuries. The best example of this is the one where Jesus says he who is without sin should throw the first stone. That story does not appear in any copy or translation of the bible until the middle ages.
Now, you can still have your belief that the cannon we have today is exactly as god planned, but to do so, you would have to acknowledge that the initial writings were not exactly what he wanted to reveal.
By Netbanker
March 30, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this
FM - I don’t think that God hides, but I do think that for the purposes of control and power organized religion has somewhat hidden God. How have they done this? From my perspective it is through complex theology and indoctrination that creates the perception that ‘the church’ has insights into scriptures that must be explained to common man because he can not understand them on his own. Translations of original text and a lack of awareness of socio-economic-political-cultural factors come heavily into play. If one does have a clear grasp on the factors above as applicable to the time period in which the original text was written then one often reaches a false conclusion as to the underlying message of any particular text. God has become hidden through loss of this understanding because in order to apply the underlying message to a modern context one must truly understand it in it’s original context. Applying a false understanding to modern life further distorts the message.
To provide a secular example (and one I’m ‘stealing’ from Daniel Helmeniak) would be use of the phrases “being off base” or ” out in left field.” We natively understand these phrases to mean that someone is not within the mainstream. The cultural reference is based on baseball. If someone with no concept of either baseball or games played with bases on a diamond shaped field reads these phrases they will not reach the same understanding as one who understands the reference.
By GOB
March 30, 2006 11:47 AM | Link to this
Kimberly - I agree with you completly regarding the logistics. It simply isnt workable. Many illegals have children that are born in this country, and therefore are citizens. Should we deport their parents, and leave to be put in foster care?
By The72John
March 30, 2006 11:52 AM | Link to this
FM, I disagree with your assertion that a company will rest on its laurels because it has achieved an efficiency in one area. A good company always looks to the future, and the “quick buck”, as you say, is often eschewed in favor of a longer-term investment.
Take Blizzard, for instance - not the best example, but one I’m assuming you can relate to, given your WoW reference. Bliz as a company routinely pours substantial development capital into each of their products and refuses to rush the development cycle. They COULD release games that are not up to their standards and garner a quicker return, but they instead choose to take the long view. The results? Games like Diablo II rake in massive sales…WoW has 6 million subscribers and climbing…
Of course now that they broke half my mods, they may lose a customer…nah, who am I kidding.
Yes, adversity CAN lead to great efficiency gains, but the absence of one does not necessarily mean the absence of the other.
In fact, a case could be made the the competitive pressure exerted on other companies by companies using the cheap labor might force THOSE companies to innovate, thereby increasing overall efficiency within the particular market by a greater degree than would be achieved if that competitive pressure didn’t exist.
But hey, what do I know - I’m just an MBA who has studied and worked in business for years now :-)
By Chilao
March 30, 2006 11:53 AM | Link to this
I always thought it interesting that if people had actually OBEYED the Bible, we never would have had the Protestant Reformation, the American Revolution, the French Revolution, etc, etc, etc. based on the ‘obey your government’ concept.
By The72John
March 30, 2006 11:57 AM | Link to this
But, that doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t have to pay a penalty for breaking a law (or rule)
No, it doesn’t, and I don’t suggest that immigrants who naturalize should do so without any penalty, either. However, kicking them out of the country back into the conditions they fled in the first place is hardly a humane, compassionate solution.
Make them pay penalties - back taxes, additional taxes - make them perform community service. Penalize them, but do so in a manner that benefits the communities they have been living in illegaly and that allows them to prove their committment to being a member of this country.
By candide
March 30, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this
The Bible was written by people with an agenda. It certainly wasn’t written by God or at God’s direction. And some of those who contributed to it, particularly the apocalytpic books, were certifiably nuts.
By FatMoose
March 30, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this
Chuck,
You state that you understand that one must search/translate/dig in the bible to understand it but see NO evidence you have done this to any degree.
You hold strong to the bigitry that is has been used for in the past in order to further your present day bias against gays and others. For example, christ’s message had included women being equal and made no bones about them having increase roles, but you go by the OT version that sexist men of that time wanted to retain.
You won’t even be up front about how much of YOUR bible is now incorrect. One example; shall not kill was shall not murder but you choose to follow mans recreation of god.
You only recently accepted mixed race marriages, and you had to ask a preacher about that. IF you knew the bible half as good as you want us to believe, you would have KNOWN that there is no such reason to believe your racist notions. And more-over, you would have KNOWN that NO god that is about love would ordain such a notion; therefore, promting you to not just change your beliefs but to ralley against the proliferation of that belief in/out-side of church.
Your message burns bridges, and does not build them as christ/bible teaches.
By Whiley
March 30, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this
Why do people spend so much time & effort on a book that clearly is flawed & written by MEN to control large groups of people? Why would anybody believe this just because a preacher told them? It’s sad.
Every word is what God wants? Nobody can really say that because it was written by people, a LONG time ago, with a specific agenda on how you should act/live your life. The “God” thing was thrown in to scare people into line. WHY do so many don’t see it for what it really is? Instead of using up all their time here memorizing & preaching about this book? Not to mention all the money wasted on big churches, TV shows, & other things.
By GOB
March 30, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this
Chilao - If the earliest christians had followed the verse Chuck quoted, we wouldnt have christians today. Christianity was illegal in the Roman Empire for quite a long time.
By Chilao
March 30, 2006 12:14 PM | Link to this
If the earliest christians had followed the verse Chuck quoted, we wouldnt have christians today. Christianity was illegal in the Roman Empire for quite a long time
exactly. LOL
By FatMoose
March 30, 2006 12:19 PM | Link to this
I disagree