Usaid: Overall in all of your posts about Dawkins, you describe him in such a way that the 'blasphemer' label can apply.
Mainly and only I believe, in one particular diatribe he engaged in. Of that one particular diatribe, you are correct I applied that label.
usaid: It is often stated and believed that those who don't believe in God, and openly state their disbeliefs are known as 'blasphemers'
Not by me, however. Which helps me understand a little better why you sometimes shoot from the hip. :) Unbelief brings up "other issues" such as salvation. People stating there "disbeliefs" is a freedom enjoyed by every American.
usaid: In any event, I stand by what I say. So lets let it go at that, ok?
Yes, I agree. The blaspheme topic in regards to what Dawkins said, will not be mentioned by me to you again.
If any of this in this post is prying too much, let me know and I shall NOT do so again.
Imagine for one moment that God exists. Isn’t it certainly possible that God could be hurt as in have his feelings hurt? Do you imagine it easy for God, to have those he created say it isn’t so? Isn’t then possible that no matter what he did, his actions would be rejected by some? Would it be easy for God to tell people the truth in that he created them knowing he would be rejected for it? Would it be better if he didn’t tell them the truth? Certainly, there has to be a need for laws for any kingdom or country to have;in order that they might have order?
I think you are too warm and considerate, to be an evolutionary atheist believer. (Now your going to whack me for stereotyping eh?) Don’t you think it’s time to quit blaming God for people like TWI and VPW? I mean, I was in 3 -4 years, an Independent Assemblies that failed. I had to move on. How did I do it? I accepted Hebrews 6:10 and moved on.
I like you too much Garth, not to hack on you some and show you the goods. I mean hacking on Darwin I can do all day long, but where does that really take us?
Evolutionary atheism is very cold. It’s also just another excuse for man to do what he wants, with no regard to consequences. Jesus one time said “Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that ,WHEN YOU FAIL,.......... into everlasting habitations. Luke 16:9 You see, he knew the disciples would fail. That’s not an excuse for failure so: could it be possible he knew we shouldn’t be here? Did God want to make man in his own image? From Genesis 6:5,6 it certainly doesn’t look like he did. Both the Psalmist and Jesus (Psalm 82:6,7 and John 10:34,35) said, " I have said, Ye are God’s and all of you are children of the most High, but you shall die like men.” WHEN EXACTLY DID GOD SAY THAT PRIOR TO THE PSALMIST? (HINT: You ain’t gonna find it written in scripture because it aint written in there) You are a smart guy Garth, I know you can figure it out. All you have to do is connect the dots.
In conclusion, could you make your prayer closet your church and come out with one of those things Dawkins doesn’t believe in as in a miracle? I think you can.
Well, I'm not Garth, but the crystals surrounding my keyboard are inspiring me
I've met some pretty ugly Christians, cold users. They were bible literalists, too, not mainstream types of Christian. They could quote a verse for every ugly thing they did. Are all Christians like that?
What made them that way? --and it just wasn't one, it was like an epidemic.
Do you, as a Christian, want to be boxed with those guys? Hey, I heard some of them speak in tongues.
I suspect all evolutionists, athiests and agnostics can't be put in boxes either, or like it.
If God knows the hearts of men, then He would know the experiences they have had that lead them to their spiritual or non spiritual conclusions. You'd think then he would be more understanding than anyone of where some one was at spiritually and why.
How can someone quit being angry with a God they don't believe exists? That is assuming that the atheist/agnostic/whatever, really, deep down inside, believes in your God.
What if they really, truly, deep down inside, don't?
Thanks for posting. It's lonely in the doctinal section at times. :(
usaid: I've met some pretty ugly Christians, cold users. They were bible literalists, too, not mainstream types of Christian. They could quote a verse for every ugly thing they did. Are all Christians like that? What made them that way? --and it just wasn't one, it was like an epidemic.
Well, Bramble, I dont think I am like that. I have met quite a few who are not either. I suppose its a stoic answer but the "love of many has waxed cold." Why? Gee Bramble, if knew the answer for every person's excuse the realistic news is this: THEY WOULDN'T LISTEN TO ME ANYWAY. LMAO
Usaid: If God knows the hearts of men, then He would know the experiences they have had that lead them to their spiritual or non spiritual conclusions. You'd think then he would be more understanding than anyone of where some one was at spiritually and why.
How he exactly views everyone, may well depend on a large amount of particulars, certainly outside the scope of what we could discuss in a couple of pages. Does this mean your going to start a new thread? I suspect with some he is more more understanding than not ;and some vice a versa; all depending on a lot of criteria. I suppose there are as many different circumstances as there are people. Does this mean in your view that if one is hurt by other Christians this would be a good criteria for not remaining a Christian?
usaid: How can someone quit being angry with a God they don't believe exists? That is assuming that the atheist/agnostic/whatever, really, deep down inside, believes in your God.
Well of course some of those that are here are a pretty special, from the standpoint that they once did believe in God. I prefer to think of them as pouters. SHHHHHH, dont tell them that. They might not be as receptive to me? NOT
usaid: What if they really, truly, deep down inside, don't?
Well Bramble would that mean I am being pushy? NOT, because if they dont want to go there its time to move on. Anyway you are quite wonderfully probing yourself, and YES I am loving it. PS If they say don't its time to move on to Darwin and his rather profound way of seeing the world. Wouldn't I seem, well rather mean, if I went there to digress, without being somewhat concerned? The Skyman likes to think at least, that he is not as you described, a cold user.
In addition to Bramble's excellent response (thank you Bramble . Keep them crystels cookin'!), I will add my own here.
Isn’t it certainly possible that God could be hurt as in have his feelings hurt? Do you imagine it easy for God, to have those he created say it isn’t so? Isn’t then possible that no matter what he did, his actions would be rejected by some? Would it be easy for God to tell people the truth in that he created them knowing he would be rejected for it?
I imagine his feelings would be hurt by those who say that they don't believe in him, etc., etc. *I* would be upset, or at the very least annoyed, at someone who doesn't believe (in) me or calls me a liar. ... I wouldn't however, be so _unjust_ and _unrighteous_ as to cause them exeeding or fatal harm (such as throwing them into some 'lake of fire') because of such. And the argument of "we need laws in order to have an orderly society" in this context fails to address that point also.
Besides, if someone doesn't 'believe (in) me' or my existance, all I have to do is look in the mirror and *taa-daaa*, I'm still here in the world of existance. God should be as secure in his existance.
I think you are too warm and considerate, to be an evolutionary atheist believer.
... I like you too much Garth, not to hack on you some and show you the goods.
Awwww. That's sweet of you to say. But that (as Bramble pointed out) is irrelevent, as there can be cold Creationist God believers, as well as warm and considerate evolutionary atheists. Besides, hacking on people is considered very rude, and isn't very healthy.
Don’t you think it’s time to quit blaming God for people like TWI and VPW?
And when did I 'blame God for TWI and VPW'? :unsure: I blame VPW and TWI for VPW and TWI.
Evolutionary atheism is very cold. It’s also just another excuse for man to do what he wants, with no regard to consequences.
Oh sure. I imagine that's what Darwin was thinking as he was putting together his theory of evolution. "This is just the excuse I need for man to do what he wants, with no regard to consequences. ... MUWHAHAhahahahaha! " ... :blink:
You are a smart guy Garth, I know you can figure it out. All you have to do is connect the dots.
Way ahead of ya, pal. And the dots that I'm finding from your presentation would make for a really interesting Rorschach ink spot test. ;)
In conclusion, could you make your prayer closet your church and come out with one of those things Dawkins doesn’t believe in as in a miracle? I think you can.
My closet is way to dusty and dark to do any praying in for my taste, so I think I'll pass.
I have met some really wonderful Christians. Roman Catholic, many of them. And the worst ones I ever met thought they were the best, doing what God wanted them to do. That is what makes them so sad--they don't even know they are manipulating people through fear and intimidation--they think they are taking a stand for God, keeping the household clean, running off the devil spirits.
I for one, refuse to listen to a religion or a God that fear mongers to gain followers. ( Not saying you are)Since I don't believe in dire consequences for unbelievers it doesn't move me like it did when I was twenty. I've actually seen unbelievers living moral and successful lives. And even Christians can't agree on the afterlife. No religion knows what it will be, they have their faith.
I actually know eclectic pagans who really like Jesus...they just can't stomach the rest of the story.
Yeah, heard the pouting thing before, too(yawn). Heard it expressed that unbelievers didn't get their ponies, so they stamped their feet at God and ran away. Impying that someday, when they mature enough, they'll come back. Well, I'm 50 now, a parent, good job, married, responsible citizen--I think I'm all grown up. That idea seems related to the general contempt TWI folk held for unbelievers, and some other Chrsitians have that same outlook on other beliefs. No respect for you, unbeliever! Also seems to paint those that made different choices than you with the immature brush. Doesn't make for good dialogue for long.
You'd think that if it was the one true way, it would be obvious to the average person exploring different religions.
I personally feel religions are equal. How one person connects --what is obvious to them--(or doesn't) spiritually or to the divine or God...might be quite different than what another experiences.
Edited to add-- As far as leaving Christianity, like many former Christians, it wasn't an instant thing. No--ooo he hurt me I'm outa here. I was in TWI nearly all my adult life, from college into my forties.
It was more like--why did they think that way? Why did they act that way? What motivated that? What do other people think about spiritual matters? Do I agree with that? Does it seems to work in the world as I see it?...and then something came up that was a better fit, that seemed right for me...
Well, I kind of understand where you are coming from, what & how you think and so forth. Thanks
usaid: Yeah, heard the pouting thing before, too(yawn). Heard it expressed that unbelievers didn't get their ponies, so they stamped their feet at God and ran away.
Well, that is not what I was saying. Certainly, the conception of getting some daily benefits in what you are doing ought to be the reason for someone wanting to stay in what you are doing. But what if the daily benefits of whatever there service to God is; just doesn’t do it for the person? Is that God’s fault? Maybe some people just don’t like the servant of all stuff, and simply want it to be a Santa Claus for them, as though they should get whatever they want. Is this a probable premise? Yes, I think it is. Perhaps some people just do not like the Kingdom of God? (No, I am not saying this about you, just about your comment because I don’t know you)On a personal note Bramble, I have had to deal with rejection from Christians all my life. Why? Long story, a little embarassing to, because I have a wife who has some serious medical issues. The skinny for me is I just slug my way through it. I mean if it’s enough to reject me based on someone else’s behavior well that’s there immaturity not mine. I certainly am not going to get myself in a twist over that. Stuff like that, should make me strong.
Usaid: That idea seems related to the general contempt TWI folk held for unbelievers, and some other Chrsitians have that same outlook on other beliefs. No respect for you, unbeliever! Also seems to paint those that made different choices than you with the immature brush. Doesn't make for good dialogue for long.
Well, I suppose that where there are different lifestyles and beliefs, each party feels that the one they possess is of the finest caliber. If that were not so; the same people who live under there own values wouldn’t want the values they possess. This however says little about the issue which you addressed which is respect. Respect is however, a two way street. What exactly is faith? I think it is interest and respect and placing value in what someone says. Noticeably, no opposing party who hold different values, are going to place much weight on what the other party says. I think that is to be expected. Unless, of course, someone changes there mind. Are you saying you feel some Christians look at you with some contempt? Well read what I said about my circumstances above and then imagine this: that some of them stand and gossip and back stab you. I have had a lot of that.
Usaid: You'd think that if it was the one true way, it would be obvious to the average person exploring different religions.
Yes, but that way has to be large enough to encompass people all who have different talents and different tastes. Some people are missionaries, some doctors or engineers or waitresses. In such circumstances experiences can vary largely. The one true way, which is Jesus Christ, happens to teach principles which can be applied to anyone’s particulars. The value of it then; is that it has personal meaning. One single person can have experience in application which no one else does just the same. The great news is that you have to do it yourself. No single person is large enough to get it done for you.
I read your last several paragraphs. When you said you were in TWI your entire lifetime, I could say to you I deeply feel for your pain. I know that just doesn’t cut it though. I have had back slappers telling me how they felt for me; only to know that it’s just simply back slapping and nothing more. Through cancer with my daughter and worse, life can be rough. Bramble if you were to say to me , hey sky where is a good place to go? I would have to say, I am not sure. You can find bad stuff in a lot of places today. But let me just say this; sometimes the best thing to do, is to take time off for yourself. Giving religion a break that is in organizations is sometimes a good thing. Heck, Bramble, I don’t go to church frequently at all. Still, I have my peace with the Lord.
Usaid: I wouldn't however, be so _unjust_ and _unrighteous_ as to cause them exeeding or fatal harm (such as throwing them into some 'lake of fire') because of such. And the argument of "we need laws in order to have an orderly society" in this context fails to address that point also.
About the lake of fire: In the next life, if someone like Joseph Stalin is running around, I’ll try sending him over to your place and he can live there for as long as necessary. Because I understand, that fatal consequences for those types is too much for your justice thoughts to handle. I also can extrapolate from your statement you wouldn’t be unjust and unrighteous in your judgement like who? Like God. Garth just said he is more just than God, because Garth wouldn’t do what God does if Garth was in his shoes. Amazing statement there Garth. I did not know until today that you thought yourself more capable of running the throne, than God.
About the orderly society: That was a question, not a statement therefore not an argument.
Usaid: Besides, hacking on people is considered very rude, and isn't very healthy.
Look Garth, pay attention: I said “not to hack on you to show you the goods.” Hacking around here means chopping on a tree. How can hacking or barking at (or what ever verb you want) someone with goods be rude and unhealthy? I mean if I am hacking with bad things then yeah. Make common sense oh man, common sense.
U said: Way ahead of ya, pal. .Too bad you think so, you don’t even have a clue what I am talking about. And that is the end of that, it will not be brought up again.
Usaid: Oh sure. I imagine that's what Darwin was thinking as he was putting together his theory of evolution. "This is just the excuse I need for man to do what he wants, with no regard to consequences.
You know Garth, your real good at taking what somebody says and trying to make it look ridiculous. You do this, by putting my words in places you know they don’t belong, Does that about sum it up, Oh Earless One? How do you know what Darwin was doing on those trips he had anyway? You really don’t know at all. So it is unfair for you to judge my premise because you really do not know. In fact, Darwin indicates he was intimate with a person. Is this a stretch of what he was saying? It doesn’t matter because we don’t know, and my PREMISE IS NOT ABOUT DARWIN. Beside that my, PREMISE IS NOT ABOUT DARWIN(X 2, so you can hear it) , BUT ABOUT WHY IT REMAINS A PLAUSIBLE THEORY TODAY. Here is the quote:
Descent of Man, On the Races Chapter page 152 my book;
Darwin Quote, “...... while living with the Fuegians on board the "Beagle" , with the many little traits of character showing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate.” end quote Charles Darwin.
usaid: My closet is way to dusty and dark to do any praying in for my taste, so I think I'll pass
Well, that’s your choice. I will pass it over you a couple of times , which I have already done. So we will not be having that conversation again, ever. Period.
SKY4it you seem like a nice guy, a conservative Chrsitian with no venom to spread, which is always nice to meet. I am sorry your Christian life has been met with so much rejection, and that would make me pause and wonder what that doctrine did to benefit people and build community.
I for one, don't find much value in a doctrine that detroys community or fails to teach others enough about introspection, self honesty and responsibility, and instead focuses on the obvious things like health.
Service to God changes with every one you speak to. In some churches you have to show up at church every Sunday, others you need to witness, others, do good works like visit the sick etc.
Not being Christian, I have no fear of the Lake of Fire or Hell and Damnation--especially for the sin of not being Chrsitian. I am willing to be responsible for my actions and beliefs--and it the Hell stuff is how is really is, then I have no respect for an all powerful God that would set things up that way. YMMMV
Like many in the Pagan /Wiccan belief system, I view prayer to change another person as manipulative--unless you know that the person desires change in a certain area, and that is what you specifically pray for.
But to pray for someone to dump their beliefs and join your beliefs(Turn to God/Jesus) is seen as a form of black (manipulative) magic( prayer is often equated to spell casting). And the maker of a manipulative prayer is the one who takes the consequence, just like a witch who casts a manipulative spell will take the consequence.
So, if you pray for me, I would respectfully request that you NOT PRAY for me to change my beliefs to yours. In fact, I am currently not working to change anything in my life--I recently made changes that will take time to grow into.
usaid: SKY4it you seem like a nice guy, a conservative Chrsitian with no venom to spread, which is always nice to meet. I am sorry your Christian life has been met with so much rejection, and that would make me pause and wonder what that doctrine did to benefit people and build community.
Why thank you Bramble, I think that's the nicest compliment I have had in a long long while. In fact, it made my day. I am a conservative on some issues, liberal on others; not what you might stereotypically call the "extreme right wing" if such a thing exists. (I think there might not be such a thing as a garden variety right winger either,( LMAO) Right wingers and left wingers? I don't pay it any mind. I am not sure Bramble, that missing doctine, I could blame for like gossip that has happened to me, but and its a big but: I have the few things in the gospel that I pay deep regard to and 1/2 thing of something else. You know how Jesus said if you have something against your brother go tell him and then tell the magistrate and then let him be as the heathen? That is an important one to me. It probably became only really important to me; when I saw how much gossip hurt me. I say its a 1/2 thing because I think you have to apply it loosely and liberally, in order not to be a legalist. A friend of mine once said, you know Christians here; they say dont do this and dont do that, but they are just fine and dandy about gossiping against people. (Hey, I think you are right, it must be missing doctrine, you just taught me that. It certainly hasn't been taught a lot any place I have ever been) I actually think that, one could perhaps murder someone with there mouth. Ie(Michael Jackson) That's not an apology for Jackson, cause I don't know him, and I am not sure of what he has done: but they sure massacred him like no one esle I ever seen. Wouldn't that be something if Jackson was innocent? If that were the case, he would be the most maligned, massacred with the mouth person ever for what he didn't do.
usaid: I for one, don't find much value in a doctrine that detroys community or fails to teach others enough about introspection, self honesty and responsibility, and instead focuses on the obvious things like health.
Service to God changes with every one you speak to. In some churches you have to show up at church every Sunday, others you need to witness, others, do good works like visit the sick etc.
AMEN Sister preach it,,, oops thats the old pentacostal is coming out in me. No, I agree with your statements. Your first paragraph is beautiful. Your second also for telling to which I would add, maybe it shouldn't be about what we have to do, if the bible says we don't have to do those things ie(The things you mentioned) I sometimes actually think, people can get into good works, and not be pleasing to God either. Ie(I think he is unimpressed with works if it dont come from the heart.) I mean if someone enjoys those things you mentioned well then go get em tiger. I see know place in the bible where we are required to do those things you mentioned in paragraph 2. Ain't freedom from that great? That's people tho, they will make you feel obligated to do so. I never feel bad for not going to church. (Sometimes I just need my ZZZZZ's) Lately, there has been more Z's than the other. A lot more, I migth add.
As far as the lake of fire things goes Bramble, I seriously don't think that someone who has been wounded in your spirit as you have, is going to benefit by worrying about things that I think must somehow only be reserved for the extreme sort. I mean somehow when we talk you just don't seem to be the type that would be planning some crime? LMAO Right off hand, I couldn't tell you exactly how that lake of fire stuff works. I think there is enough written about it tho, that one could arrive at reasonably accurate idea.
usaid: So, if you pray for me, I would respectfully request that you NOT PRAY for me to change my beliefs to yours. In fact, I am currently not working to change anything in my life--I recently made changes that will take time to grow into.
This I will do as you just said. Since I am a forgetful person you might have to remind me to pray. (LOL) The thing about me is I can't convert you to what I believe anyway, so you have no need to fear. Neither am I apart of any org, who is recuiting anyone. I mean, think about it Bramble, could there be a worse spot to look for converts than here at GS? Nobody is going to get fooled twice right? I just wanted to bring that up to have your heart at rest with me. BTW, your last statement about growing, I guess that is about all I can hope for, for myself too. That's a great target, and one thats good for me too.
I like your heart Bramble, your very sweet. Touching someones heart once in a while is about all a guy like me can hope for. If all religion could be just like that wouldn't that be dandy?
I told you that I would prove to you the media LIES about Miss Ann Coulter. Here is the proof:
An organization called media matters wrote and used the following under No.8 below to tell a LIE
which was in the following article captioned: Endnotes in Coulters latest book rife with distortions and falsehoods. The link is listed below. The Dawkins comment she is referring too which Dawkins said was, “ Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist”. The organization Media Matters, tries to make it look like Dawkins never said this. That quote from Dawkins is in his book the Blind Watchmaker. So Media Matters distorted a given fact, because Dawkins made the statement. Here is the weblink for proof:
Thus, media matters are a lying piece of crap organization. For, IT’S NOT THAT HARD TO GOOGLE SEARCH THE ITEM AND FIND IT or AT LEAST CHECK IF IT EXISTS. That’s how lame this organization is, it is only a political agenda with them.
8. On Pages 199-200, Coulter attacked "atheists" who "need evolution to be true." Citing what she presented as two Washington Post articles from May 15, 2005, Coulter wrote:
Although God believers don't need evolution to be false, atheists need evolution to be true. William Provine, an evolutionary biologist at Cornell University, calls Darwinism the greatest engine of atheism devised by man. His fellow Darwin disciple, Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins, famously said, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."1 This is why there is a mass panic on the left whenever someone mentions the vast and accumulating evidence against evolution.
The Washington Post articles Coulter cited are actually one article by Michael Powell, with the headline, "Doubting Rationalist," accompanied by the subhead, " 'Intelligent Design' Proponent Phillip Johnson, and How He Came to Be." But nowhere in the article will one find the Dawkins quote Coulter cited.
Ooops did she put the 1 in the wrong place? It doesn't matter you can find that Dawkins quote at numerous places on the web. This is the cheesy goods that a "independent" news agency brings to the table.
<_< Thought you were gonna let this go. ... Apparently not. ... I didn't think so.
One thing you might want to do as regards your dear Ann Coulter is to step back and realize that her side of the story isn't all pure as the driven snow, and I'm not talking about putting '1' in the wrong place either. ... Ie., she's a pundit/commentator/celebrity like anyone else in her field (ie., Rush Limbaugh/Shawn Hannity/Neil Boortz/Micheal Moore/Bill Mahar/Lou Dobbs/etc./etc.). And ONLY a a pundit/commentator/celebrity. ... Period. ... End of story. ... Thats it.
By the way, you didn't show me proof with your two links. Your 'wiki.cotch.net' link didn't give what Darwin said in his own words. It gave some else's writings on what they thought Darwin portrayed, writings which Coulter twists and contorts to her own ends. Ie., in this respect, Media Matters was very correct. They gave valid criticism of Coulter's content and tactics, ... a criticism that (apparently) Coulter supporters like you cannot stand.
Ie., her opinions re: evolutionists and atheists just don't hold up under scrutiny, especially when you get to _actually_ know evolutionary biologists and where they are coming from, and the same goes for atheists. ... Period. ... No more than that. Ie., the rantings about evolution breeding Nazism or atheism breeding Communism (or opinions similar to this) is bunk. Desperate, fear-mongering bunk based on deliberate ignorance. ..... The same kind of bunk that John Calvin was famous for. (Think about that for a moment, will ya?)
I could (and have) google the phrase "Ann Coulter's lies" and come up with a whole slew of resources (including the ones you came up with) skewering her reputation apart. ... Now you and I could go back and forth on and on and on ad nauseum with this stuff, but (beyond this post) I feel that would be a waste of time.
But I am serious when I suggest to you that you step back, and re-evaluate how important you hold Ann Coulter and her opinions. Is she really as infallible as you seemingly portray her? Is just about any and all criticisms about what she writes/says nothing more than heinous attacks by the e-v-i-l Left (insert boos and hisses by upright and moral people here <_< )? Is what she says really THE valid standard of what constitutes Treason? (woman screams and faints in the background) ..... Hell, all we need now is a wrestling ring surrounded by a cage, and we have ourselves a WWF certified event! :wacko:
Oh, by the way, speaking of The Media (insert more boos and hisses here), ..... Ann Coulter is part and parcel of that media. ... Reality is a b**ch, ain't it?
Anywho, just had to respond to your I-will-let-it-go-but-not-really response.
Caio.
P.S., Oopsie! I forgot something. That *one* error where Media Matters gets it wrong in the "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." quote (thus inspiring your contention that the whole Media is lying about Ann Coulter wholesale) is more than offset by Coulter's statement immediately following: "This is why there is a mass panic on the left whenever someone mentions the vast and accumulating evidence against evolution."
There is a word that defines such statements: Propaganda. The way it's stated seems to portray this monolithic panic by all on The Left whenever this (supposed) accumulating evidence is brought up. If anything, what is misinterpreted as 'panic' are evolutionary scientists and biologists demanding evidence that goes beyond, and even challenges the biblical/creationist account. Conclusive or consistant evidence, (instead of the crap people like Dr. Hovind keeps coming up with), particularly if it is to be taught in our public schools. THAT is what Coulter sees as 'panic'. ... And it's flawed. Ie., a lie!
Coulter is just as fast and loose with her info in a lot of other places as well. So in this respect, she FAR outdoes Media Matters in the lying department.
Joke of the Day: Q: What do you call 10 atheists dropped off in Iran; 9 who are stuck there 1 who got out? A: Nine(9) new Muslim converts and the one free atheist.. (That’s my joke I made that one up)
Another Joke: Q: How do you win an argument with an atheist? A: Only one way, you have to become one. (I made that one up too.)
Garth: Actually, your comeback on my joke, made me laugh, thanks. I’ll start a thread on topic a little better this weekend where we can have a more civil conversation about the dynamics. As far as the Media matters citation, you COMPLETELY MISSED THE POINT. If you had said ,well she is a Republican and this Republican over here did this and this one over here did that; that would have been a little more impressive. As far as the things you said about her being a celebrity and stuff; that doesn’t fly either and here is the reason: (Notice I have a reason) Miss Coulter says things that get people upset, not just a few people but a lot of people. People that are celebrities and want fame, say the least number of upsetting things possible so that they can keep there fame. Get it? That’s how I know she means business. Furthermore, you can see in her books a person of integrity ,honesty and conviction. Her topics are about that those things are missing in society. In addition, she must be a tireless worker, for the books are so referenced and deep; she had to take literally months and months to write them. I have never read material, that has more references, even while I was in college.
Look Garth, Listen up: I am not going to stand around and play peek-a-boo with you anymore. I am not going to go into the particulars of your petty argument. In the future, I am going to do, just like you do and avoid, dodge, back away from what you say for one reason: WHAT YOU SAY SOMETIMES DOESN’T REGISTER ON MY COMMON SENSE METER. But give me credit for one thing. At least, when I do it I am telling you that is what I am doing. What you call that is honesty and integrity. As opposed to people like Dawkins and Darwin, who prance around with big words acting like they actually have something that needs to be heard.
Now Listen up Garth, this will help you understand. You want to know what I am? I am a piece of chit. That’s what I am. Now listen closely. A person doesn’t just wake up one morning, and discover they are a piece of chit. A piece of chit like me, you become it over many years. I am a work in progress so to speak. Pieces of chit like me are not born, you have to earn your stipes to become one. One becomes a piece of chit, by people using , abusing, disrespecting, and such things for many years. There is however one great piece of news about a piece of chit like me. I can smell somebodies chit, like Darwin and Dawkins all the time. These evilutionary (oops typo) (Darwin and Dawkins I mean not you) atheists? They are driving around on a ten speed bicycle that doesn’t have a seat. Hint Hint: I think they get the point too.
Now, back to the amazing Miss Ann Colther. Don’t you think it’s possible that when a guy like Olbermann smashes a doll on his desk of Miss Ann, that this would make her feel like a piece of chit? Problem is she ain’t one. And here is the skinny; throwing the chit back where it belongs: I like to do that and call it simple fun. You see, oh earless one, I gotta get the chit off me too.(Don’t feel bad about being “the earless one”, I mean be positive you still have a nose, mouth and eyes) Because the truth is; it ain’t my chit. Get it? What is the point with Miss Colther? TrashMaster, Kieth Olberman when he did this is trying to turn Miss Colther into what I am, a piece of chit, that my friend is WRONG WRONG WRONG. He should have been fired. I mean if O’Rielly had done this to Nancy Pelosi or Diane Feldstein(spell???) , he would have been FIRED, FIRED and fried, get it? ( I mean, did you see, how Olberman and crew put a patch over her eye in photographs? That’s sick that’s whack and disgusting.) That’s the double standard from the media. And if you can’t get that, its getting late late late and hopeless.(There are things about Nancy Pelosi I like too, so no I am NOT some right wing nut get it? Why? Pelosi bowls people over, does what she wants(at times) like going to Syria.) Now, wether it was Olberman smashing a Miss Ann doll or Dawkins diatribe against God; did you notice that no one (at least that I heard) defended them at all? You know what you call that? That is called a disgrace, by those who had an opportunity in the media to say something about it and didn’t. Get it?
Now back to me being a piece of chit. I happen to think that I am priceless as in nobody can even afford me. That is my opinion of myself. So I don’t get worked up about being a piece of chit. Do you understand now, is this CLEAR?
Look, Garth, don’t get yourself in a twist overly much or not just yet about this stuff. You hung around with me and we chatted. With me that’s always the cats milk. I presume you are aware of exactly the diatribe Dawkins said was which I referred to earlier. I mean would you sign your name to that and say, yep, Dawkins saying that is you too? Because if you would, that would be the end of the cats milk between you and me.
From one 'peice of chit' to another (Yes Virginia, I am a 'peice of chit' in my own right. Just ask anyone here at the ol' Cafe, and many of them will readily agree. ;) )
There are plenty of my points that you have missed, either by mistake or deliberately. (Only you know for sure.)
But in any event, you can take this to the bank. I don't dodge, avoid, back away, play pee-a-boo, or any of the other false crap that you said I do. One thing that I do here, and that is state directly what I think and what I hold to be true. <--- Read that again, s-l-o-w-l-y if you have to. Now, I might be right, and I might be wrong (Newsflash! I have been shown to be wrong from time to time here on this board, even in my most argumentative state! BUT, one has to prove that I'm wrong, not simply just make the claim that I am. Example of this: Raf set me straight a few years back on what actually constitutes plagarism, in regards to VPW's writings. And he took the time and effort to show me why.)
But I sure as hell don't dodge, back away, or avoid points that are made, and this thread ought to make it obvious to you. So spare me the 'cat's milk' argument. It's condescending, and it isn't very becoming of you.
Oh, and my posts aren't petty either. Just because you don't want to give them any thought doesn't make them petty.
P.S., Ann Coulter is a celebrity BECAUSE of her combative style, particularly amongst her conservative supporters. Just thought you'd like to know.
usaid: So spare me the 'cat's milk' argument. It's condescending, and it isn't very becoming of you.
Once again Garth, you made me laugh, thanks. I take that as a compliment Garth, I really do. Does this mean you generally don't consider me condescending? LMAO well that's a argument that flies both ways no?
Anway, lets ajorn this thread because I just started one where it belongs. (In the Cyber Hippies space as you so eloquently indicate)
If you post on that other thread, I am going to whoop it up tonight a little and may not get back to you for a couple of days. It should be interesting intriqing and all that; oh braving the waters of uncharted athiestic veiws, what marvelous entertainment lies ahead!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's God Creator VS Eviloutionary (oops typo, not) atheism, what ever shall come next?
Joke of the Day: Q: What do you call 10 atheists dropped off in Iran; 9 who are stuck there 1 who got out? A: Nine(9) new Muslim converts and the one free atheist.. (That's my joke I made that one up)
Another Joke: Q: How do you win an argument with an atheist? A: Only one way, you have to become one. (I made that one up too.)
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
47
26
11
16
Popular Days
Sep 8
52
Sep 9
21
Sep 10
18
Sep 14
10
Top Posters In This Topic
sky4it 47 posts
GarthP2000 26 posts
Bramble 11 posts
Larry N Moore 16 posts
Popular Days
Sep 8 2007
52 posts
Sep 9 2007
21 posts
Sep 10 2007
18 posts
Sep 14 2007
10 posts
sky4it
Garth:
Usaid: Overall in all of your posts about Dawkins, you describe him in such a way that the 'blasphemer' label can apply.
Mainly and only I believe, in one particular diatribe he engaged in. Of that one particular diatribe, you are correct I applied that label.
usaid: It is often stated and believed that those who don't believe in God, and openly state their disbeliefs are known as 'blasphemers'
Not by me, however. Which helps me understand a little better why you sometimes shoot from the hip. :) Unbelief brings up "other issues" such as salvation. People stating there "disbeliefs" is a freedom enjoyed by every American.
usaid: In any event, I stand by what I say. So lets let it go at that, ok?
Yes, I agree. The blaspheme topic in regards to what Dawkins said, will not be mentioned by me to you again.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Garth:
If any of this in this post is prying too much, let me know and I shall NOT do so again.
Imagine for one moment that God exists. Isn’t it certainly possible that God could be hurt as in have his feelings hurt? Do you imagine it easy for God, to have those he created say it isn’t so? Isn’t then possible that no matter what he did, his actions would be rejected by some? Would it be easy for God to tell people the truth in that he created them knowing he would be rejected for it? Would it be better if he didn’t tell them the truth? Certainly, there has to be a need for laws for any kingdom or country to have;in order that they might have order?
I think you are too warm and considerate, to be an evolutionary atheist believer. (Now your going to whack me for stereotyping eh?) Don’t you think it’s time to quit blaming God for people like TWI and VPW? I mean, I was in 3 -4 years, an Independent Assemblies that failed. I had to move on. How did I do it? I accepted Hebrews 6:10 and moved on.
I like you too much Garth, not to hack on you some and show you the goods. I mean hacking on Darwin I can do all day long, but where does that really take us?
Evolutionary atheism is very cold. It’s also just another excuse for man to do what he wants, with no regard to consequences. Jesus one time said “Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that ,WHEN YOU FAIL,.......... into everlasting habitations. Luke 16:9 You see, he knew the disciples would fail. That’s not an excuse for failure so: could it be possible he knew we shouldn’t be here? Did God want to make man in his own image? From Genesis 6:5,6 it certainly doesn’t look like he did. Both the Psalmist and Jesus (Psalm 82:6,7 and John 10:34,35) said, " I have said, Ye are God’s and all of you are children of the most High, but you shall die like men.” WHEN EXACTLY DID GOD SAY THAT PRIOR TO THE PSALMIST? (HINT: You ain’t gonna find it written in scripture because it aint written in there) You are a smart guy Garth, I know you can figure it out. All you have to do is connect the dots.
In conclusion, could you make your prayer closet your church and come out with one of those things Dawkins doesn’t believe in as in a miracle? I think you can.
Thoughts????????????????????
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Well, I'm not Garth, but the crystals surrounding my keyboard are inspiring me
I've met some pretty ugly Christians, cold users. They were bible literalists, too, not mainstream types of Christian. They could quote a verse for every ugly thing they did. Are all Christians like that?
What made them that way? --and it just wasn't one, it was like an epidemic.
Do you, as a Christian, want to be boxed with those guys? Hey, I heard some of them speak in tongues.
I suspect all evolutionists, athiests and agnostics can't be put in boxes either, or like it.
If God knows the hearts of men, then He would know the experiences they have had that lead them to their spiritual or non spiritual conclusions. You'd think then he would be more understanding than anyone of where some one was at spiritually and why.
How can someone quit being angry with a God they don't believe exists? That is assuming that the atheist/agnostic/whatever, really, deep down inside, believes in your God.
What if they really, truly, deep down inside, don't?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Garth and Bramble: Garth see above 2 posts
Bramble:
Thanks for posting. It's lonely in the doctinal section at times. :(
usaid: I've met some pretty ugly Christians, cold users. They were bible literalists, too, not mainstream types of Christian. They could quote a verse for every ugly thing they did. Are all Christians like that? What made them that way? --and it just wasn't one, it was like an epidemic.
Well, Bramble, I dont think I am like that. I have met quite a few who are not either. I suppose its a stoic answer but the "love of many has waxed cold." Why? Gee Bramble, if knew the answer for every person's excuse the realistic news is this: THEY WOULDN'T LISTEN TO ME ANYWAY. LMAO
Usaid: If God knows the hearts of men, then He would know the experiences they have had that lead them to their spiritual or non spiritual conclusions. You'd think then he would be more understanding than anyone of where some one was at spiritually and why.
How he exactly views everyone, may well depend on a large amount of particulars, certainly outside the scope of what we could discuss in a couple of pages. Does this mean your going to start a new thread? I suspect with some he is more more understanding than not ;and some vice a versa; all depending on a lot of criteria. I suppose there are as many different circumstances as there are people. Does this mean in your view that if one is hurt by other Christians this would be a good criteria for not remaining a Christian?
usaid: How can someone quit being angry with a God they don't believe exists? That is assuming that the atheist/agnostic/whatever, really, deep down inside, believes in your God.
Well of course some of those that are here are a pretty special, from the standpoint that they once did believe in God. I prefer to think of them as pouters. SHHHHHH, dont tell them that. They might not be as receptive to me? NOT
usaid: What if they really, truly, deep down inside, don't?
Well Bramble would that mean I am being pushy? NOT, because if they dont want to go there its time to move on. Anyway you are quite wonderfully probing yourself, and YES I am loving it. PS If they say don't its time to move on to Darwin and his rather profound way of seeing the world. Wouldn't I seem, well rather mean, if I went there to digress, without being somewhat concerned? The Skyman likes to think at least, that he is not as you described, a cold user.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Sky4it,
In addition to Bramble's excellent response (thank you Bramble
. Keep them crystels cookin'!), I will add my own here.
I imagine his feelings would be hurt by those who say that they don't believe in him, etc., etc. *I* would be upset, or at the very least annoyed, at someone who doesn't believe (in) me or calls me a liar. ... I wouldn't however, be so _unjust_ and _unrighteous_ as to cause them exeeding or fatal harm (such as throwing them into some 'lake of fire') because of such. And the argument of "we need laws in order to have an orderly society" in this context fails to address that point also.Besides, if someone doesn't 'believe (in) me' or my existance, all I have to do is look in the mirror and *taa-daaa*, I'm still here in the world of existance.
God should be as secure in his existance.
Awwww. That's sweet of you to say. But that (as Bramble pointed out) is irrelevent, as there can be cold Creationist God believers, as well as warm and considerate evolutionary atheists. Besides, hacking on people is considered very rude, and isn't very healthy.
And when did I 'blame God for TWI and VPW'? :unsure: I blame VPW and TWI for VPW and TWI.Oh sure. I imagine that's what Darwin was thinking as he was putting together his theory of evolution. "This is just the excuse I need for man to do what he wants, with no regard to consequences. ... MUWHAHAhahahahaha!
" ... :blink:
Way ahead of ya, pal. And the dots that I'm finding from your presentation would make for a really interesting Rorschach ink spot test.My closet is way to dusty and dark to do any praying in for my taste, so I think I'll pass.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
I have met some really wonderful Christians. Roman Catholic, many of them. And the worst ones I ever met thought they were the best, doing what God wanted them to do. That is what makes them so sad--they don't even know they are manipulating people through fear and intimidation--they think they are taking a stand for God, keeping the household clean, running off the devil spirits.
I for one, refuse to listen to a religion or a God that fear mongers to gain followers. ( Not saying you are)Since I don't believe in dire consequences for unbelievers it doesn't move me like it did when I was twenty. I've actually seen unbelievers living moral and successful lives. And even Christians can't agree on the afterlife. No religion knows what it will be, they have their faith.
I actually know eclectic pagans who really like Jesus...they just can't stomach the rest of the story.
Yeah, heard the pouting thing before, too(yawn). Heard it expressed that unbelievers didn't get their ponies, so they stamped their feet at God and ran away. Impying that someday, when they mature enough, they'll come back. Well, I'm 50 now, a parent, good job, married, responsible citizen--I think I'm all grown up. That idea seems related to the general contempt TWI folk held for unbelievers, and some other Chrsitians have that same outlook on other beliefs. No respect for you, unbeliever! Also seems to paint those that made different choices than you with the immature brush. Doesn't make for good dialogue for long.
You'd think that if it was the one true way, it would be obvious to the average person exploring different religions.
I personally feel religions are equal. How one person connects --what is obvious to them--(or doesn't) spiritually or to the divine or God...might be quite different than what another experiences.
Edited to add-- As far as leaving Christianity, like many former Christians, it wasn't an instant thing. No--ooo he hurt me I'm outa here. I was in TWI nearly all my adult life, from college into my forties.
It was more like--why did they think that way? Why did they act that way? What motivated that? What do other people think about spiritual matters? Do I agree with that? Does it seems to work in the world as I see it?...and then something came up that was a better fit, that seemed right for me...
Edited by BrambleLink to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Bramble:
Well, I kind of understand where you are coming from, what & how you think and so forth. Thanks
usaid: Yeah, heard the pouting thing before, too(yawn). Heard it expressed that unbelievers didn't get their ponies, so they stamped their feet at God and ran away.
Well, that is not what I was saying. Certainly, the conception of getting some daily benefits in what you are doing ought to be the reason for someone wanting to stay in what you are doing. But what if the daily benefits of whatever there service to God is; just doesn’t do it for the person? Is that God’s fault? Maybe some people just don’t like the servant of all stuff, and simply want it to be a Santa Claus for them, as though they should get whatever they want. Is this a probable premise? Yes, I think it is. Perhaps some people just do not like the Kingdom of God? (No, I am not saying this about you, just about your comment because I don’t know you)On a personal note Bramble, I have had to deal with rejection from Christians all my life. Why? Long story, a little embarassing to, because I have a wife who has some serious medical issues. The skinny for me is I just slug my way through it. I mean if it’s enough to reject me based on someone else’s behavior well that’s there immaturity not mine. I certainly am not going to get myself in a twist over that. Stuff like that, should make me strong.
Usaid: That idea seems related to the general contempt TWI folk held for unbelievers, and some other Chrsitians have that same outlook on other beliefs. No respect for you, unbeliever! Also seems to paint those that made different choices than you with the immature brush. Doesn't make for good dialogue for long.
Well, I suppose that where there are different lifestyles and beliefs, each party feels that the one they possess is of the finest caliber. If that were not so; the same people who live under there own values wouldn’t want the values they possess. This however says little about the issue which you addressed which is respect. Respect is however, a two way street. What exactly is faith? I think it is interest and respect and placing value in what someone says. Noticeably, no opposing party who hold different values, are going to place much weight on what the other party says. I think that is to be expected. Unless, of course, someone changes there mind. Are you saying you feel some Christians look at you with some contempt? Well read what I said about my circumstances above and then imagine this: that some of them stand and gossip and back stab you. I have had a lot of that.
Usaid: You'd think that if it was the one true way, it would be obvious to the average person exploring different religions.
Yes, but that way has to be large enough to encompass people all who have different talents and different tastes. Some people are missionaries, some doctors or engineers or waitresses. In such circumstances experiences can vary largely. The one true way, which is Jesus Christ, happens to teach principles which can be applied to anyone’s particulars. The value of it then; is that it has personal meaning. One single person can have experience in application which no one else does just the same. The great news is that you have to do it yourself. No single person is large enough to get it done for you.
I read your last several paragraphs. When you said you were in TWI your entire lifetime, I could say to you I deeply feel for your pain. I know that just doesn’t cut it though. I have had back slappers telling me how they felt for me; only to know that it’s just simply back slapping and nothing more. Through cancer with my daughter and worse, life can be rough. Bramble if you were to say to me , hey sky where is a good place to go? I would have to say, I am not sure. You can find bad stuff in a lot of places today. But let me just say this; sometimes the best thing to do, is to take time off for yourself. Giving religion a break that is in organizations is sometimes a good thing. Heck, Bramble, I don’t go to church frequently at all. Still, I have my peace with the Lord.
My thoughts and prayers are with you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Bramble and Garth: (Bramble see above post)
Garth:
Usaid: I wouldn't however, be so _unjust_ and _unrighteous_ as to cause them exeeding or fatal harm (such as throwing them into some 'lake of fire') because of such. And the argument of "we need laws in order to have an orderly society" in this context fails to address that point also.
About the lake of fire: In the next life, if someone like Joseph Stalin is running around, I’ll try sending him over to your place and he can live there for as long as necessary. Because I understand, that fatal consequences for those types is too much for your justice thoughts to handle. I also can extrapolate from your statement you wouldn’t be unjust and unrighteous in your judgement like who? Like God. Garth just said he is more just than God, because Garth wouldn’t do what God does if Garth was in his shoes. Amazing statement there Garth. I did not know until today that you thought yourself more capable of running the throne, than God.
About the orderly society: That was a question, not a statement therefore not an argument.
Usaid: Besides, hacking on people is considered very rude, and isn't very healthy.
Look Garth, pay attention: I said “not to hack on you to show you the goods.” Hacking around here means chopping on a tree. How can hacking or barking at (or what ever verb you want) someone with goods be rude and unhealthy? I mean if I am hacking with bad things then yeah. Make common sense oh man, common sense.
U said: Way ahead of ya, pal. .Too bad you think so, you don’t even have a clue what I am talking about. And that is the end of that, it will not be brought up again.
Usaid: Oh sure. I imagine that's what Darwin was thinking as he was putting together his theory of evolution. "This is just the excuse I need for man to do what he wants, with no regard to consequences.
You know Garth, your real good at taking what somebody says and trying to make it look ridiculous. You do this, by putting my words in places you know they don’t belong, Does that about sum it up, Oh Earless One? How do you know what Darwin was doing on those trips he had anyway? You really don’t know at all. So it is unfair for you to judge my premise because you really do not know. In fact, Darwin indicates he was intimate with a person. Is this a stretch of what he was saying? It doesn’t matter because we don’t know, and my PREMISE IS NOT ABOUT DARWIN. Beside that my, PREMISE IS NOT ABOUT DARWIN(X 2, so you can hear it) , BUT ABOUT WHY IT REMAINS A PLAUSIBLE THEORY TODAY. Here is the quote:
Descent of Man, On the Races Chapter page 152 my book;
Darwin Quote, “...... while living with the Fuegians on board the "Beagle" , with the many little traits of character showing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate.” end quote Charles Darwin.
usaid: My closet is way to dusty and dark to do any praying in for my taste, so I think I'll pass
Well, that’s your choice. I will pass it over you a couple of times , which I have already done. So we will not be having that conversation again, ever. Period.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
SKY4it you seem like a nice guy, a conservative Chrsitian with no venom to spread, which is always nice to meet. I am sorry your Christian life has been met with so much rejection, and that would make me pause and wonder what that doctrine did to benefit people and build community.
I for one, don't find much value in a doctrine that detroys community or fails to teach others enough about introspection, self honesty and responsibility, and instead focuses on the obvious things like health.
Service to God changes with every one you speak to. In some churches you have to show up at church every Sunday, others you need to witness, others, do good works like visit the sick etc.
Not being Christian, I have no fear of the Lake of Fire or Hell and Damnation--especially for the sin of not being Chrsitian. I am willing to be responsible for my actions and beliefs--and it the Hell stuff is how is really is, then I have no respect for an all powerful God that would set things up that way. YMMMV
Like many in the Pagan /Wiccan belief system, I view prayer to change another person as manipulative--unless you know that the person desires change in a certain area, and that is what you specifically pray for.
But to pray for someone to dump their beliefs and join your beliefs(Turn to God/Jesus) is seen as a form of black (manipulative) magic( prayer is often equated to spell casting). And the maker of a manipulative prayer is the one who takes the consequence, just like a witch who casts a manipulative spell will take the consequence.
So, if you pray for me, I would respectfully request that you NOT PRAY for me to change my beliefs to yours. In fact, I am currently not working to change anything in my life--I recently made changes that will take time to grow into.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Bramble: Garth see post up above.
usaid: SKY4it you seem like a nice guy, a conservative Chrsitian with no venom to spread, which is always nice to meet. I am sorry your Christian life has been met with so much rejection, and that would make me pause and wonder what that doctrine did to benefit people and build community.
Why thank you Bramble, I think that's the nicest compliment I have had in a long long while. In fact, it made my day.
I am a conservative on some issues, liberal on others; not what you might stereotypically call the "extreme right wing" if such a thing exists. (I think there might not be such a thing as a garden variety right winger either,( LMAO) Right wingers and left wingers? I don't pay it any mind. I am not sure Bramble, that missing doctine, I could blame for like gossip that has happened to me, but and its a big but: I have the few things in the gospel that I pay deep regard to and 1/2 thing of something else. You know how Jesus said if you have something against your brother go tell him and then tell the magistrate and then let him be as the heathen? That is an important one to me. It probably became only really important to me; when I saw how much gossip hurt me. I say its a 1/2 thing because I think you have to apply it loosely and liberally, in order not to be a legalist. A friend of mine once said, you know Christians here; they say dont do this and dont do that, but they are just fine and dandy about gossiping against people. (Hey, I think you are right, it must be missing doctrine, you just taught me that. It certainly hasn't been taught a lot any place I have ever been) I actually think that, one could perhaps murder someone with there mouth. Ie(Michael Jackson) That's not an apology for Jackson, cause I don't know him, and I am not sure of what he has done: but they sure massacred him like no one esle I ever seen. Wouldn't that be something if Jackson was innocent? If that were the case, he would be the most maligned, massacred with the mouth person ever for what he didn't do.
usaid: I for one, don't find much value in a doctrine that detroys community or fails to teach others enough about introspection, self honesty and responsibility, and instead focuses on the obvious things like health.
Service to God changes with every one you speak to. In some churches you have to show up at church every Sunday, others you need to witness, others, do good works like visit the sick etc.
AMEN Sister preach it,,, oops thats the old pentacostal is coming out in me. No, I agree with your statements. Your first paragraph is beautiful. Your second also for telling to which I would add, maybe it shouldn't be about what we have to do, if the bible says we don't have to do those things ie(The things you mentioned) I sometimes actually think, people can get into good works, and not be pleasing to God either. Ie(I think he is unimpressed with works if it dont come from the heart.) I mean if someone enjoys those things you mentioned well then go get em tiger. I see know place in the bible where we are required to do those things you mentioned in paragraph 2. Ain't freedom from that great? That's people tho, they will make you feel obligated to do so. I never feel bad for not going to church. (Sometimes I just need my ZZZZZ's) Lately, there has been more Z's than the other. A lot more, I migth add.
As far as the lake of fire things goes Bramble, I seriously don't think that someone who has been wounded in your spirit as you have, is going to benefit by worrying about things that I think must somehow only be reserved for the extreme sort. I mean somehow when we talk you just don't seem to be the type that would be planning some crime? LMAO Right off hand, I couldn't tell you exactly how that lake of fire stuff works. I think there is enough written about it tho, that one could arrive at reasonably accurate idea.
usaid: So, if you pray for me, I would respectfully request that you NOT PRAY for me to change my beliefs to yours. In fact, I am currently not working to change anything in my life--I recently made changes that will take time to grow into.
This I will do as you just said. Since I am a forgetful person you might have to remind me to pray. (LOL) The thing about me is I can't convert you to what I believe anyway, so you have no need to fear. Neither am I apart of any org, who is recuiting anyone. I mean, think about it Bramble, could there be a worse spot to look for converts than here at GS? Nobody is going to get fooled twice right? I just wanted to bring that up to have your heart at rest with me. BTW, your last statement about growing, I guess that is about all I can hope for, for myself too. That's a great target, and one thats good for me too.
I like your heart Bramble, your very sweet. Touching someones heart once in a while is about all a guy like me can hope for. If all religion could be just like that wouldn't that be dandy?
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
I told you that I would prove to you the media LIES about Miss Ann Coulter. Here is the proof:
An organization called media matters wrote and used the following under No.8 below to tell a LIE
which was in the following article captioned: Endnotes in Coulters latest book rife with distortions and falsehoods. The link is listed below. The Dawkins comment she is referring too which Dawkins said was, “ Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist”. The organization Media Matters, tries to make it look like Dawkins never said this. That quote from Dawkins is in his book the Blind Watchmaker. So Media Matters distorted a given fact, because Dawkins made the statement. Here is the weblink for proof:
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Darwin_mad...lfilled_atheist
Thus, media matters are a lying piece of crap organization. For, IT’S NOT THAT HARD TO GOOGLE SEARCH THE ITEM AND FIND IT or AT LEAST CHECK IF IT EXISTS. That’s how lame this organization is, it is only a political agenda with them.
Below is at this link: http://mediamatters.org/items/200608070002
8. On Pages 199-200, Coulter attacked "atheists" who "need evolution to be true." Citing what she presented as two Washington Post articles from May 15, 2005, Coulter wrote:
Although God believers don't need evolution to be false, atheists need evolution to be true. William Provine, an evolutionary biologist at Cornell University, calls Darwinism the greatest engine of atheism devised by man. His fellow Darwin disciple, Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins, famously said, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."1 This is why there is a mass panic on the left whenever someone mentions the vast and accumulating evidence against evolution.
The Washington Post articles Coulter cited are actually one article by Michael Powell, with the headline, "Doubting Rationalist," accompanied by the subhead, " 'Intelligent Design' Proponent Phillip Johnson, and How He Came to Be." But nowhere in the article will one find the Dawkins quote Coulter cited.
Ooops did she put the 1 in the wrong place? It doesn't matter you can find that Dawkins quote at numerous places on the web. This is the cheesy goods that a "independent" news agency brings to the table.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
<_< Thought you were gonna let this go. ... Apparently not. ... I didn't think so.
One thing you might want to do as regards your dear Ann Coulter is to step back and realize that her side of the story isn't all pure as the driven snow, and I'm not talking about putting '1' in the wrong place either. ... Ie., she's a pundit/commentator/celebrity like anyone else in her field (ie., Rush Limbaugh/Shawn Hannity/Neil Boortz/Micheal Moore/Bill Mahar/Lou Dobbs/etc./etc.). And ONLY a a pundit/commentator/celebrity. ... Period. ... End of story. ... Thats it.
By the way, you didn't show me proof with your two links. Your 'wiki.cotch.net' link didn't give what Darwin said in his own words. It gave some else's writings on what they thought Darwin portrayed, writings which Coulter twists and contorts to her own ends. Ie., in this respect, Media Matters was very correct. They gave valid criticism of Coulter's content and tactics, ... a criticism that (apparently) Coulter supporters like you cannot stand.
Ie., her opinions re: evolutionists and atheists just don't hold up under scrutiny, especially when you get to _actually_ know evolutionary biologists and where they are coming from, and the same goes for atheists. ... Period. ... No more than that. Ie., the rantings about evolution breeding Nazism or atheism breeding Communism (or opinions similar to this) is bunk. Desperate, fear-mongering bunk based on deliberate ignorance. ..... The same kind of bunk that John Calvin was famous for. (Think about that for a moment, will ya?)
I could (and have) google the phrase "Ann Coulter's lies" and come up with a whole slew of resources (including the ones you came up with) skewering her reputation apart. ... Now you and I could go back and forth on and on and on ad nauseum with this stuff, but (beyond this post) I feel that would be a waste of time.
But I am serious when I suggest to you that you step back, and re-evaluate how important you hold Ann Coulter and her opinions. Is she really as infallible as you seemingly portray her? Is just about any and all criticisms about what she writes/says nothing more than heinous attacks by the e-v-i-l Left (insert boos and hisses by upright and moral people here <_< )? Is what she says really THE valid standard of what constitutes Treason? (woman screams and faints in the background) ..... Hell, all we need now is a wrestling ring surrounded by a cage, and we have ourselves a WWF certified event!
:wacko:
Oh, by the way, speaking of The Media (insert more boos and hisses here), ..... Ann Coulter is part and parcel of that media. ... Reality is a b**ch, ain't it?
Anywho, just had to respond to your I-will-let-it-go-but-not-really response.
Caio.
P.S., Oopsie! I forgot something. That *one* error where Media Matters gets it wrong in the "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." quote (thus inspiring your contention that the whole Media is lying about Ann Coulter wholesale) is more than offset by Coulter's statement immediately following: "This is why there is a mass panic on the left whenever someone mentions the vast and accumulating evidence against evolution."
There is a word that defines such statements: Propaganda. The way it's stated seems to portray this monolithic panic by all on The Left whenever this (supposed) accumulating evidence is brought up. If anything, what is misinterpreted as 'panic' are evolutionary scientists and biologists demanding evidence that goes beyond, and even challenges the biblical/creationist account. Conclusive or consistant evidence, (instead of the crap people like Dr. Hovind keeps coming up with), particularly if it is to be taught in our public schools. THAT is what Coulter sees as 'panic'. ... And it's flawed. Ie., a lie!
Coulter is just as fast and loose with her info in a lot of other places as well. So in this respect, she FAR outdoes Media Matters in the lying department.
NOW I'm done.
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Abigail: here they are:
Joke of the Day: Q: What do you call 10 atheists dropped off in Iran; 9 who are stuck there 1 who got out? A: Nine(9) new Muslim converts and the one free atheist.. (That’s my joke I made that one up)
Another Joke: Q: How do you win an argument with an atheist? A: Only one way, you have to become one. (I made that one up too.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
That's one helluva indictment against religious people, doncha think? ;)
(I made that one up)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Garth: Actually, your comeback on my joke, made me laugh, thanks. I’ll start a thread on topic a little better this weekend where we can have a more civil conversation about the dynamics. As far as the Media matters citation, you COMPLETELY MISSED THE POINT. If you had said ,well she is a Republican and this Republican over here did this and this one over here did that; that would have been a little more impressive. As far as the things you said about her being a celebrity and stuff; that doesn’t fly either and here is the reason: (Notice I have a reason) Miss Coulter says things that get people upset, not just a few people but a lot of people. People that are celebrities and want fame, say the least number of upsetting things possible so that they can keep there fame. Get it? That’s how I know she means business. Furthermore, you can see in her books a person of integrity ,honesty and conviction. Her topics are about that those things are missing in society. In addition, she must be a tireless worker, for the books are so referenced and deep; she had to take literally months and months to write them. I have never read material, that has more references, even while I was in college.
Look Garth, Listen up: I am not going to stand around and play peek-a-boo with you anymore. I am not going to go into the particulars of your petty argument. In the future, I am going to do, just like you do and avoid, dodge, back away from what you say for one reason: WHAT YOU SAY SOMETIMES DOESN’T REGISTER ON MY COMMON SENSE METER. But give me credit for one thing. At least, when I do it I am telling you that is what I am doing. What you call that is honesty and integrity. As opposed to people like Dawkins and Darwin, who prance around with big words acting like they actually have something that needs to be heard.
Now Listen up Garth, this will help you understand. You want to know what I am? I am a piece of chit. That’s what I am. Now listen closely. A person doesn’t just wake up one morning, and discover they are a piece of chit. A piece of chit like me, you become it over many years. I am a work in progress so to speak. Pieces of chit like me are not born, you have to earn your stipes to become one. One becomes a piece of chit, by people using , abusing, disrespecting, and such things for many years. There is however one great piece of news about a piece of chit like me. I can smell somebodies chit, like Darwin and Dawkins all the time. These evilutionary (oops typo) (Darwin and Dawkins I mean not you) atheists? They are driving around on a ten speed bicycle that doesn’t have a seat. Hint Hint: I think they get the point too.
Now, back to the amazing Miss Ann Colther. Don’t you think it’s possible that when a guy like Olbermann smashes a doll on his desk of Miss Ann, that this would make her feel like a piece of chit? Problem is she ain’t one. And here is the skinny; throwing the chit back where it belongs: I like to do that and call it simple fun. You see, oh earless one, I gotta get the chit off me too.(Don’t feel bad about being “the earless one”, I mean be positive you still have a nose, mouth and eyes) Because the truth is; it ain’t my chit. Get it? What is the point with Miss Colther? TrashMaster, Kieth Olberman when he did this is trying to turn Miss Colther into what I am, a piece of chit, that my friend is WRONG WRONG WRONG. He should have been fired. I mean if O’Rielly had done this to Nancy Pelosi or Diane Feldstein(spell???) , he would have been FIRED, FIRED and fried, get it? ( I mean, did you see, how Olberman and crew put a patch over her eye in photographs? That’s sick that’s whack and disgusting.) That’s the double standard from the media. And if you can’t get that, its getting late late late and hopeless.(There are things about Nancy Pelosi I like too, so no I am NOT some right wing nut get it? Why? Pelosi bowls people over, does what she wants(at times) like going to Syria.) Now, wether it was Olberman smashing a Miss Ann doll or Dawkins diatribe against God; did you notice that no one (at least that I heard) defended them at all? You know what you call that? That is called a disgrace, by those who had an opportunity in the media to say something about it and didn’t. Get it?
Now back to me being a piece of chit. I happen to think that I am priceless as in nobody can even afford me. That is my opinion of myself. So I don’t get worked up about being a piece of chit. Do you understand now, is this CLEAR?
Look, Garth, don’t get yourself in a twist overly much or not just yet about this stuff. You hung around with me and we chatted. With me that’s always the cats milk. I presume you are aware of exactly the diatribe Dawkins said was which I referred to earlier. I mean would you sign your name to that and say, yep, Dawkins saying that is you too? Because if you would, that would be the end of the cats milk between you and me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
From one 'peice of chit' to another (Yes Virginia, I am a 'peice of chit' in my own right. Just ask anyone here at the ol' Cafe, and many of them will readily agree. ;) )
There are plenty of my points that you have missed, either by mistake or deliberately. (Only you know for sure.)
But in any event, you can take this to the bank. I don't dodge, avoid, back away, play pee-a-boo, or any of the other false crap that you said I do. One thing that I do here, and that is state directly what I think and what I hold to be true. <--- Read that again, s-l-o-w-l-y if you have to. Now, I might be right, and I might be wrong (Newsflash! I have been shown to be wrong from time to time here on this board, even in my most argumentative state! BUT, one has to prove that I'm wrong, not simply just make the claim that I am. Example of this: Raf set me straight a few years back on what actually constitutes plagarism, in regards to VPW's writings. And he took the time and effort to show me why.)
But I sure as hell don't dodge, back away, or avoid points that are made, and this thread ought to make it obvious to you. So spare me the 'cat's milk' argument. It's condescending, and it isn't very becoming of you.
Oh, and my posts aren't petty either. Just because you don't want to give them any thought doesn't make them petty.
P.S., Ann Coulter is a celebrity BECAUSE of her combative style, particularly amongst her conservative supporters. Just thought you'd like to know.
Cheers! :B)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Garth:
usaid: So spare me the 'cat's milk' argument. It's condescending, and it isn't very becoming of you.
Once again Garth, you made me laugh, thanks. I take that as a compliment Garth, I really do. Does this mean you generally don't consider me condescending? LMAO well that's a argument that flies both ways no?
Anway, lets ajorn this thread because I just started one where it belongs. (In the Cyber Hippies space as you so eloquently indicate)
If you post on that other thread, I am going to whoop it up tonight a little and may not get back to you for a couple of days. It should be interesting intriqing and all that; oh braving the waters of uncharted athiestic veiws, what marvelous entertainment lies ahead!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's God Creator VS Eviloutionary (oops typo, not) atheism, what ever shall come next?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Party on, Wayne! Party on, Garth!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sushi
Don't quit your day job, sky.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Sushi: why is it I laugh more at my own jokes than anyone else? A: because I have a good sense of humor.
Now that was lame.
cheers
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Sorry, Sky, but I don't "get" them. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Abby:
K
Like I said to the Garth one, later on the intellectual stuff maybe Sunday.
Well ABBY, it was my own jokes , but we shall talk later
ABBY.......................................
Music dance oh yeah, its Friday nite Miss Abby
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.