George Aar

Hell, I'm not running much of anywhere these days. My bones ache too much for that. But I'm content to live in the moment as much as possible. Oh, the future always manages to invade all the same, but now and then I get a glimpse of the here and now...

Sorry, I noticed ZERO difference in my life, tithing or not. Well, I shouldn't say zero, I had more money in my pocket when I gave up the foolish practice. But I somehow doubt that that was the result of any profound spiritual principle I was "operating"...

Wayfer not. Re:"What do you think would be more believable if you were to believe? I'm just wondering." Well, this is strictly for conversation sake, as the odds of me turning to the "believer" camp are pretty slim at this point, but, I guess a religion where your actions had more to do with your redemption than just what thoughts you may hold in your head. The issue I was raising earlier was that, though a Christian's guilt may be erased by the cross of Christ, the consequences of his sins are not. That just doesn't make any sense to me. One can kill, rape, murder, plunder, but become a Christian and you can escape all blame. Your victims are still dead, raped and savaged, but you're held blameless! Isn't that just special? Yeah, I do view it with a very jaundiced eye. The inconsitencies, the vagueries, the holes in the logic, it just doesn't seem to be a very well thought-out philosophy...

"are you working on your troll merit badge, too?" Tom Odd, thanks for a good morning chucke...

I'm normally firmly in the ranks of the skeptics here at GS, but, everything you've said thus far has the ring of truth to it, and my B.S. meter hasn't registered anything yet, so... My take on LCM is that - despite the carnage that he himself wrought in people's lives - he was ultimately one of the biggest victims of VPW (Victor Paul Wierwille, founder of the cult of The Way International). Craig became the victim because he actually believed the B.S. Where as Wierwille - driven, no doubt by some sort of anti-social pathology - played the game of being "The Man of God for Our Day and Time", LCM actually thought that he WAS that. I never was overwhelmed with Craig's intellect. And ultimately he was simply a buffoon caught up in some surreal role-playing game, who ended up in way over his head, trying to fill the shoes of a master-grifter. And he had neither the personna nor the aptitude to really pull off a con of that magnitude. And really, he didn't even know that it was a con. After all, he was a man of limited experience in the world. He never held a real job, never really came into his own, didn't even pick his own wife. He was an immature jock with a gift of gab and great knack for working a crowd, but with little or no depth. Then he was turned loose to man the helm of a modest-sized, but voriaciously loyal group of cultists. Geeze, what could possibly go wrong with that? So, while my heart doesn't wellup in sympathy for the gimp, I would guess that he's a pretty pathetic wretch about now. Oh well, reality can be a harsh taskmaster...

I've always thought that the whole human sacrifice aspect of Christianity was just a bit over the top, don't you think? I mean, who decided that sacrificing His only begotten son would be a good idea? Seems like a pretty hard-hearted way of setting things up. And another thing, just how does this perfect guy getting killed (for a few hours, anyway) do anything to mitigate the severity of MY sins? If I murdered some unbeliever down the street, then become a Christian, how does Christ's dying do anything to mitigate the fact that my neighbor's DEAD? Yet, he paid for my sins? Sorry, it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Never did really (though I never let on before). And doesn't the fact that he was going to get raised from the dead in just a few days (and he KNEW it) sorta lessen the magnamity of he sacrifice just a teeny bit? I mean, really, doesn't it amount to - rather than Jesus dying for your sins - that he had a really lousy weekend for your sins? Un uh, O.K. I won't do anymore to spoil the party...

Suda, Well, being as I'm a little further down that road (a road I don't recommend taking) with my marriage, maybe I can offer you some insights from a position maybe a bit closer to your hubby's. At the risk of sounding horrendously sexist, I think there is a marked difference between the way men and women think about "spiritual" matters. I believe men tend to try to figure it out logically, trying to make sense of their religion simply through reasoning. Women, OTOH, approach it primarily by how it makes them feel. They seem to be much more emotionally connected to their faith than men. As a result, when we discuss the matter, we're talking different languages. He's talking about factual matters, she's talking about feelings. Yes, broad generalities, fer sure, but I believe that's fundamentally true. But all of that aside, from a strictly practical point of view, what difference do his beliefs make in your everyday lives? Personally, I know I don't act any differently now than a I did as a "believer". I dress the same, act the same, work the same, treat others the same, lose my temper about as much, try to be a sweet guy about as much. There's just no great divide between my personna as a believer or agnostic. About the only definite thing that one would notice, is that I no longer spend a millisecond praying or studying some supposed holy writ. And that hasn't brought about any cataclysmic results either. It wouldn't matter if I believed in Jesus Christ, Peter Pan, or Hercules, the outward man stayed the same. The effects of one's "faith" on their personal life just aren't very profound, IMNSHO. But wifey thought that it was serious enough that she just couldn't take it anymore, I guess (at least that's one of the reasons she gave - those changed dramatically depending on her audience at the time). Anyway, I guess my advice would be - don't worry about it. He's still the same guy, your life will still be the same, and if you continue in your respective paths (as seems likely) things will be fine, unless you choose to make an issue of them. I dunno, I'm certainly no expert. That's all I've got...

What, is this another drive-by posting? Well, my adivice to you would be "Wake up and smell the decade"...

Statistics are a wonderful thing, aren't they? I'd bet that over 98% of all axe-murderers have axes in their houses. Of course, so do lots of other people. When it comes to the whackjobs that commit the weirdo sex crimes and the like, is it any wonder that they'd have porn in their homes? I don't find that fact to be the least bit remarkable. The question becomes a chicken and egg kinda deal though. Did the guy start looking at porn and become a sexual predator, or was he a predator already, and just collecting more stuff that reflected the obsession he already had? I tend to think the later. I guess I'm not the quintessential "normal" American man, but lord knows I looked at my share of porn when I was younger, and I can't see as it did me any harm. Probably didn't do me any good either, but what the hell? And isn't it generally the "other" guys we're worried about when it comes to stuff we'd like to censor? You know, we're together enough to handle that sort of thing, but - Lord have mercy - if those lesser-type folks get ahold of it, all Hell will surely break loose...

Danny, I still think the "Lincoln Hat" was inspired. Some of the other's comments, uh, not so much...

Well, in the School of Wierwillianisms, I think "A person can never go further than they're taught" has got to take the prize as one of the dumbest of the basic tenets. How did we get fire, agriculture, the wheel? Oh yeah, the devil did it. Oh gawd, does it get any dumber? It's one of those statements - that if you don't analyze it - seems to sounds sensible. But if you look at it for more than a second, the lunacy of it jumps right out at you. We were so foolish. Shame on us all...

Allan W. My, getting a little cranky are we? Shorts riding up on you again?

Yeah, why do bad things happen to good people (and vise versa)? Well, there IS the obvious answer...

Danny, Of COURSE! The Lincoln hat! Why didn't I think of that?

Xena, Sounds like your experiences with childbirth were a tad different than those in the Aar household. I remember taking all those classes and trying to assist wifey when she was in labor. I saw her having a difficult time so I put my vast "learning" into action. "Do you want to change your breathing pattern, honey?" NO! "Oh, how about an ice chip?" SHUT UP YOU A-HOLE!" "Yes dear" - and I went back to sleep...

Yeah, I think everybody's stated it pretty well now. Do I think lots of people "faked" their interpretation or prophecy? Well, I'm pretty sure most of them thought it was the real deal. Just like some people think that the cursor on a Ouija Board moves by itself, or that maybe they have the ability to "read" minds, or "minister" healing, or any other of a litany of woo-woo crap. Sorry, it was a joke. And the joke was on us...

I've always found great comfort in my rabbit's foot...

O.K., you knew I couldn't resist a Haiku contest: Jelly beans, choc'late Sudo, in route to the bank Chuckles heartily

Hmmm, I don't think THAT would be too difficult...

Second James, I don't know that I even understand your question. I don't believe in things that I have no evidence of. Simple, no? I don't view that as being "negative" - just honest. And as long as you're apparently still adamant about spreading your sympathies around, I guess I'll reciprocate and say that I'm sorry that you can't seem to understand that viewpoint. What I DO find difficult - and for me it WAS a very negative experience - is doing all sorts of mental gymnastics in order to try to make the God of The Bible seem like a reality, when so many things in my practical, everyday life would contradict that notion (this is where you get to pound your chest and tell me about how your faith carries you through in spite of that stuff, and you're SORRY that I don't have enough of that). The more I think about it the sillier religion becomes, SORRY, it just does...

James II, RE:George..I see your position is still the same..my deepest sympathy" Ahh, I'd say save it for someone who needs - or wants - it. I'm fine, really. Do you feel sorry for those that no longer believe in: Santa Claus? The Loch Ness Monster? Astrology? Any religion other than Christianity? Not much difference in my book. And just so's you'll know, agnosticism isn't particularly painful...

Or, even better, don't publish anything at all. Geeze, like we don't know what their take is on The Bible by now? Well, those that follow that sort of thing, anyway...

I dunno. Personally I have zero interest in seeing it. As with "Apollo 13" and other recent-event historical fare, I just don't know why I'd want to watch it. I know how it ends.

Oak, Indeed, but logic and religion have never been comfortable with each other, IMNSHO. Despite claims to the contrary, I see religion has being entirely dependant on emotions and feelings. Rational thinking need not apply. Maybe that's why women seem so much more attracted to church-going? I dunno...

I didn't see cheesecake on the list, so I went with "ice cream". Not really my favorite, but I'm not a cake person at all. And, I'm not a sports person at all either. Go figure...