GarthP2000

I got a question for you as regards this, and I mean this in all sincerity. Why? ... Why do you need to defend it? Heck, I figure that if what you have is so true and so real, ... it ought to be able to stand on its own despite any and all questioning, scrutiny, criticism, and even challenges, ... which is often interpreted as 'assault' by many Christians. Of all the crap that Weirwille spewed, one of the _few_ lines that I think that he made sense on was "Truth needs no defense." I mean, think about that one for a minute. ... If it's true, then it cannot fall to 'lies', else it wouldn't be worth much ... would it?

... until then the beatings of life will continue.

What? Don't you get Netflix over the net? :B)

Hey! I try sometimes to be a nice guy. ... I don't always succeed, but perhaps I can try better next time. And with that final tap dance , I think I'll bow out of this conversation. I've made my point, and you've made yours. Peace!

Me mischaracterizing? ... calling names? ... acting enraged? ... acting 'cultic'? ..... Look who's talking! And you can't see that in yourself because ... why? Because you're a mainstream and orthodox Christian? And that keeps you from behaving like that? There are a LOT of things that I said in my posts here that you egregiously mischaracterize and misrepresent. My initial point I made a few posts ago was regarding my _valid_ complaint regarding your misrepresentation regarding those who don't believe. And somehow you extrapolated from that some supposed desire of mine for Christians to be persecuted and tortured, illustrated by _your_ following, not-so-subtle statement: And all because I don't like 'fundies' often exhibiting this "We are going to preach our gospel to you whether you like it or not!" attitude? You say that you aren't of that attitude. And yet when you say things like "Here is one I heard tonight. . . gotta make it my new tag line to go along with my new label . . . . IF sinners want to jump into the lake of fire.. . . they will have to do it over my body.", ... well, what am I supposed to think? And the person you heard it from, was he or she a fellow Christian? Because I just can't imagine an unbeliever spewing that kind of garbage. Yes, you have the legal right to spew--errr, speak the gospel to whomever you will, ... and (like you yourself has also said), people like me can speak against your (if you'll pardon the term) 'moving the Word' ;), _particularly when it involves berating unbelievers_. ... What? You say you have never berated any unbelievers? Well, your scripture does, and since you believe that your scriptures are indeed the Word of God and the authority of your faith, ... and you believe in speaking such, . . . . . _you_ do the math. <_< Wrong lady, I'm in the _right_ country, founded by those which included a good number who had the same kind of skepticism towards religion that I do. ... At least! Why, here's a few quotes from one such source, Thomas Jefferson, clearly illustrating said skepticism: Hhmmm, now that last one sounded like name calling, ya think? ;)

You are indeed unaware, as I was involved in various mainstream and not-so-mainstream churches/groups, and the more 'fundy' ;) churches I was in have a _far_ more level of similarity to those 'damn cults' than you realize, ... or even than you dare to admit. Now that's funny! People like you evidently have no qualms in telling us unbelievers how to live our lives (when you tell us that we need to convert to Jesus), yet can't take the alleged same (if it is indeed the same) coming from us. (((snort))) Yah! Right! ... Want to treat us with respect? Stop with the "I will preach the Gospel to you whether you like it or not!" mentality. If _I_ don't want to hear it, _you_ have no right to persist. Fine. Tell ya what. YOU spare US your fundamentalist vitriol, and give us unbelievers some peace. ... But as per some of the things you say here, it's apparently against your religion to do that now, isn't it? Ie., the following providing us with a _classic_ example of this: 'Nuff said on that point! ... Oh, and have a nice day!

This is Yet Another Variation of the Same Old Argument of how those who do not accept god have no morals, don't believe anything is sacred, have no compassion. ... And frankly, I'm sick and tired of that argument that's based on nothing more than religious propaganda (that's also propped up by strawman arguments like "Dealing with the problem of human suffering? A lofty and noble goal. . .if pain is the end point. . . . we can then kill suffering children because that will end their pain? That would make killing acceptable and even compassionate. ..." etc., etc., ad nauseum ) that people blindly hang on to, ... even if they actually know someone who's an atheist who has been a compassionate individual. <_< Also, I can relate to Chockfull's argument re: fundamentalism. Particularly when the selfsame fundamentalists (ie., 'fundies', as I like to call them) absolutely refuse to consider challenges (valid ones, that is) to what they believe. Ie., _blind_ faith. ... Been there, done that, burnt the t-shirt! Update: Well actually, it does. Particularly in the evening when people just want a little peace and quiet, thank you very much. ... Perhaps that was the idea behind the Swiss outlawing all those Muslim mosque minarets recently. They just had it up to here with all of those "ALLLLL-AHHHHHH ACK-BARRRRR!!" howlings 4 times a day. P.S., I wonder if this is part of me being a 'pi**eroffer'? ... Certain folks here know what I mean by that term. ;)

((snickers)) It amazes me on how many people try to view a movie thru their political lens. Seeing the 'Socialist Factor', as it were. "OMG! OMG! The natives are trying to keep their beautiful world from being stripped of it's golden rocks by greedy people! That flick must have had a Socialist who hates 'Murica write it!! Reminds me of back in the days of TWI when flicks were supposed to be interpreted 'spiritually', and find out hidden devilish messages (put in reverse, mind you ;)) put in by seed boys so that they can fool America into becoming a National Socialist State! (insert woman's screams here) :o

Hey, no problem running WinXP. Heck, I've been running it for the past 8+ years, and still run it with Win 7 on another partition.

Using ex70sHouston's analogy of validating Faux--err, Fox News by means of the ratings 'principle', one could say that reality shows, which undoubtedly outrank Fau--I mean, Fox News (I have _got_ to stop doing that ;) ) in the ratings dept., are more plausible than even Fox News. Am I right on this? :B) P.S., also please keep in mind that Faux--((damn)) I mean, Fox News _also_ includes entertainers like Bill O'Riley, Glen Blechh (Glen's new avatar ;)), etc. ... Now, _please_ don't tell me that those clowns are a valid part of news professionals, ... please?!

Ahhhh, ... A Mac spy, ehh? ;)

Such as mental illness being MISdiagnosed as 'demon spirits'. <_<

Uummm, ... ok.

The song-and-dance bull.... factor: priceless! ;)

Well, logically speaking, the reverse should also be true. Ie., keep lowering the minimum wage (or abolish it altogether as some staunch conservatives _still_ want), and there would be an increase of (minimum wage) jobs, right? ... Why, keep up with that 'principle', and we'd revert back to the days o' slavery. I mean, they didn't get paid _at all_, and there were jobs o' plenty. ... In the South. ... Pickin' cotton! _Or_, could be that there is something called the "Works great on paper, but doesn't work so well in _real life_" principle, and perhaps there is more to be considered here than what one economics professor teaches.

I once saw no less than an ordained minister on TV raging and yelling and spewing spittle out of his mouth, ... and for a moment I coulda _swore_ I saw his head spin around! :blink: Then I realized that he was talking about Obama. ... Hey! I'm just saying. ;)

(Skeptical satire mode on) Ya know, for once, I'd like to see where NORAD is 'tracking Santa' on his annual flight, and then (in increasingly anxious voices) report a rogue F-15 scramble, intercept Santa's sleigh in mid air (due to the pilot's delusions that Santa is really a terrorist), and start to fearfully report that, despite their best attempts to intercept the rogue pilot, he starts to let loose his interceptor missiles towards Santa's sleigh. ..... :blink: ..... then everybody there breaks out in boisterous laughter, and say "J-U-S-T kidding, kiddies!" BWAHAhahahahahahaha...! No Virginia, there isn't a Santa Claus! Just you, and me, and the rest of civilization who needs to get up off of our collective duffs, and try to improve the condition of humanity!

So I take it this isn't the sequel to "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly"?

One thing about Windows 7 is, like its predecessors, it operates slower and slower the more apps/plugins/and other goodies you install on it. Maybe that's one continuous characteristic about Windows. But overall, I'm glad I waited till 7 came out, thus skipping Vista.

Oh great! Blame the parents! ... But seriously, ... where'd you get that garbage anyway? ... Yes, that's right. I called it garbage. <_<

Read what I said again. It's quite plain what I said, even if you 'mistake' what it says. I didn't say that it wasn't known of. I said that the sexual prohibitions weren't dealt with because of disease. But I'll tell you one thing. They didn't know nearly as much about diseases as we do know now. A glaring example? Mental illness back then was referred to as "being possessed by demons". That point _alone_ illustrates their blatant ignorance in their knowledge of medicine and health. ????? Huh! And here I thought that you were a devout Christian. A lot of things in that particular post alone would get most Christians ticked at you. :o Anyway, you're a grown adult. Read what I said. There are quite a few points where you missed/misread what I said. ... As Zixar once said in his tag sign-off, "It's not my fault if you don't read the whole thing."

Ahh actually, there was no concern for sexually transmitted diseases back then. There was no mention of syphilis, gonorrhea, AIDS, etc. in the bible. The prohibition against sexual misbehaviors was strictly from a social/religious background to the controlling of behavior. Never mind that even many of the most 'godly' individuals of the bible often partook of the 'forbidden fruit' of unmarried sex, and quite often at that. <_<

It amazes me how there can be people who oppose trying the 5 teens as adults, never mind the sheer terror the victim went through. I wonder what sheer terror the defendants think that they're going to go through being the playthings for hardened criminals when they're convicted. ;)

Heck, I read that, and I can _easily_ see that principle in mainstream and orthodox churches as well. ... But perhaps the reason why many folks don't see the same principle in their own churches kinda has the similarity to the principle to how we often readily see the sins and faults in other people, and yet have great difficulty seeing it in themselves and their own.

(emphasis mine) Oh, *hell* no! We need to have more of that kind of model. ... Only causes more strife?! Only in the lazy minds of those who hold to this backwards point of view. <_<