LG

I know. I was just kidding.

Hi, Refiner. What are you rejecting these days? Hornets' nests? ;)-->

So all my research was for naught? I'm a broken man.

After exhaustive research, consisting entirely of skimming this thread with barf bag and hanky in hand, it became obvious to me what Momentus did for Ex10. The content of her posts provided important clues but her avatar was the one that tied it all together for me. Momentus turned her into a Donna Reed clone, with a perpetual smile on her face. I looked for evidence that it had done something similar for Evan and, sure enough, there it was, in black and white, on page 7. Evan said, “the tick in my face went away [a perpetual smile can explain that], and (much more importantly), I've given much more of myself to my family [sounds just like Donna] since then.” This knowledge helps to clarify Evan’s previous statement, “The three of us [he, his wife, and his sister] are now quite close [like sisters?]...an amazing result.” Amazing indeed! This also explains the mixed reviews of Momentus (being a Donna Reed clone is not for everyone and would traumatize some).

I didn’t see a reason to bother with this thread until now. Invective and silly challenges of “manly men” on Internet forums are of no interest to me. But now a question arises in my mind. Do those who chide others for responding harshly to LLPOF intend to follow their own counsel of “speaking reasonably” and “helping him out of the ditch?” If not, then all those words amount to empty pontification, in my estimation.

Boys, The object at the lower left of the picture is a bow on the dress, not a camera. The rope is horizontal. The left shoulder (to right of picture) is lower than the right and is also nearer to the photographer. This is consistent with the woman walking toward the photographer and leading with her left sida at the time of the shot. The lens was approximately face high, making the angle from the lens to the objects at issue slightly downward, which magnifies the effect. This explains Zixar's perception but the picture does not support his conclusion.

Let's put it to a vote. a) It's an attack of the adversary. b) It's an Act of God. c) "They" are out to get us. d) Paw is really doing what he says. e) Paw is experimenting on us, to see how we react to change. (As for me, as soon as I click on "Post Now," I'm going to hide under my desk until it's over.)

Yes, welcome. Have a seat in this nice, cozy, metal chair under this bright light. Vee vish to know you better.

I confess, without giggling, that I have peeked at both "Little Bit of Heaven" and "Potty Mouth Haven." I think lots of folks are making way too much of what other people say. The person who used the words "enemy territory" put them in quotes, indicating that he didn't mean it literally. All he meant was that Christians can't hide from the world but have to step out into "territory" that sometimes is (or seems to be) hostile. Heck, that's true of everybody. Regarding the question, I can't think of anyone I consider an enemy, except sometimes a certain red-haired ex-Catholic, ex-TWI person.* *I'm talking about the guy in my mirror, ex.

George is correct, Linda. Here's an mp3. It would be better without the background music but you might still like it. http://www.redantdc.com/audio/fourthman.mp3

I think it was a prayer of sorts. Notice that he said "dam" rather than "damn." I think he was asking God to shut us all up. Ya gotta admit, that would be a blessing.Still another George (who would go by George W. from Texas but some SOBush took that handle).

Maybe it is unfair in a sense, excathedra, but not because of unfair forum policies or practices. I think the rules are fair and that pawtucket and the moderators honestly try to administer them fairly.

Even without seeing behind the scenes interaction, that's pretty obvious. Y'all do a good job.Now to a serious subject: You really should consider getting your bees some clothes.

I was a little irritated last night and said something that seemingly agrees with the selective enforcement complaint. I don't agree with that. The only "selectivity" I see is a slight favoring of those who can best state their case. That's not unfair, it's just normal. This is one of the best-run forums I've seen.

Ugh, Mark. I'm not "trying to work with" Zixar or offering him "counsel." I'm just having a discussion.

-

A further clarification: “This was intended more as an example of tolerance than as an indictment for hypocrisy” does not exclude intent to point out hypocrisy. Some thoughts: If it is acceptable to profess belief in the Bible in any GS forum, then it should be just as acceptable to profess disbelief in the Bible in the same forum. If it is acceptable to discuss perceived benefits of Christianity, then it should be just as acceptable to discuss perceived detriments of Christianity. If it is acceptable to claim that the Bible is true, then it should be just as acceptable to claim that it is false. If it is acceptable for a theist to say that non-theists reject “God” or any other religious concept because of arrogance or because of a childish “I didn’t get my pony, so I’m going to claim you don’t exist!” then it should be just as acceptable for non-theists to discuss the real reasons they reject a particular deity, deities in general, or other religious concepts. If it is acceptable to cite “Penn & Teller: Bullsh-t!” regarding some topics, then it should be just as acceptable to cite the same source regarding the Bible. (How one expresses oneself in citing it is a different matter.) If one promotes Penn & Teller and says, in the open forum, that “P&T take on PETA and their bulls--t”, then one should not be overly offended when another says essentially the same thing about another topic Penn & Teller took on, the Bible. According to the show’s website, they “show that the Bible is about as factual as the National Enquirer.” If, in the open forum, one ridicules ouija boards and witches, poking fun at them for their failure to pass a simple test designed by a couple of skeptics on a television show, then one should not be overly offended by others’ disbelief in or even ridicule of the Bible or Bible believers, especially when those same skeptics, in a different episode of the same television show, debunk some “truths” of the Bible. If one seeks to ban “trolls” who promote religious, theistic, Christian beliefs he finds distasteful… If one attacks an ex-twi Presbyterian minister for “promoting atheistic ideas” because he posited that speaking in tongues might a mental process, rather than a spiritual one… If one ridicules young earth creationists because their literal Biblical interpretation contradicts the science he accepts but is offended if others ridicule a literal Biblical interpretation he accepts, even if it contradicts science he also claims to accept... If he says that if God had created the earth to look young, that would be dishonest, but is angered by people who say that if a god committed or ordered genocide, that would make him unworthy of worship… Some might call that intolerant and hypocritical.

"is there a REAL WORD in the poster's lives" P-mosh almost has a real word, "cannibalism." Rascal definitely has a real word, "boxers!!!!" Ex... Well, most of her real words have to be phu.... up a bit before they'll pass the auto-censor. I can't think of a real word that applies to Tom. Isn't that Strange? Amazing! too.

Cynic, I thought you were intentionally distorting my meaning. Your reply to Lindy leads me to believe that it was a simple misunderstanding. I was lax in my wording because I was merely trying to convey the gist of what Evan has said in other places. I wasn't attempting to state something on which to base an argument.

Cynic, What I don’t care to do is to counter your attempts to entrap me with distortions. If one accepts certain presumptions as axioms, then any conclusions that logically arise from those axioms are as sound as the axioms themselves. I know that and have never suggested otherwise. I did not represent the notion of “a supposedly infallible ‘magical self-interpreting Bible’” to be an axiom. I think you know that, but you have suggested otherwise.

A couple of clarifications: The quoted thread is not the “Agnostics Table in the Back.” This was intended more as an example of tolerance than an indictment for hypocrisy. I think we all would do well to be tolerant of disagreement, even when it irritates us. I also think we would do well to avoid irritating others, as much as is reasonably possible without stifling discussion.

Cynic, It is not my purpose to refute anyone’s faith. By “supposedly infallible,” I did not mean a presumption of infallibility as an axiom, which your challenge presumes. Let’s just leave it there.

Refiner, I'd like for y'all (correct plural of "you" :)-->) to stick around, or at least visit from time to time. I think you overreacted to the attacks against you, but you didn't initiate the hostilities, and you contribute in many positive ways, IMO.

I think the bull**** comment would have better been left unsaid, but what I really want to address is something Raf said several days ago. Actually, yes he is. To quote Judge Judy (pre-TV), don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. He says it's logical to reject Christ. So if you accept him, you're not logical. Fine, that's his opinion and he's entitled. And maybe he didn't explicitly ask anyone to adopt his belief, but he doesn't have to. Not when he names the thread "Why I reject Christ" and states that it's logical to do so. That’s not a fair interpretation of what Refiner wrote. He explained his conclusion that the OT God is not worthy of worship. Then he said, “This logically, in my mind, [emphasis mine] extended over to an unwillingness to accept Jesus…” In no way does that suggest that it is illogical for someone who thinks that the OT God is worthy of worship to accept Christ. In other words, Refiner did not suggest that your acceptance of Christ is illogical.If someone thinks that the OT God is not worthy of worship, then it would be illogical for that person to accept Christ, because that acceptance would entail worshipping that God. If someone thinks that the OT God is worthy of worship, then it would not be illogical for that person to accept Christ, but neither would it necessarily be logical. Jews think that the OT God is worthy of worship but do not accept Jesus as Christ. Evan may not appreciate my endorsement, but he exhibits what I have called, in Plotinus’ words, a “reasonable faith.” By that, I don’t mean one that can be supported by logic, but rather, one that is not refuted by logic. Why? The main reason is that it is not based on logic, particularly not on trying to draw logical conclusions from a supposedly infallible, “magical self-interpreting Bible.” It’s a bit of a paradox that what makes such faith “reasonable” is that it is not based on reason. If it were, it wouldn't be faith.

The following is from the thread I discuss above. I made one edit, which I note in square brackets. This is not, IMO, doctrinal in nature.