Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article

from Christy Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 13:24 (Agree/Disagree?) To each his/her own! Just as I'll never convince my republican friends that the war in Iraq is a mistake, there's really no point in arguing with someone about her religious beliefs. Everyone has his or her own reasons for choosing particular religious beliefs. It doesn't have to make sense to someone else. I think that even those of us who do believe that there is a higher power (in some form or other), do not want to be "witnessed" to or convinced that there is some absolute truth that we must embrace in order to complete our lives. I know that I tend to feel pretty resistant to religion, even though I do believe that there is a god. (reply to this comment)

From Sonderval Wednesday, January 14, 2004, 02:34 (Agree/Disagree?) Ack, you mentioned the war in Iraq, now you've gone and done it. ;-)(reply to this comment)

from exister Thursday, January 08, 2004 - 17:57 (Agree/Disagree?) Dude you are fucking delusional! Things do not go wrong because of curses. The only power these "Family Curses" have is over people who believe in them. The reason you believe in them is that it is too painful to admit that you fucked up or somebody fucked you. There are no other explanations for the failures in your life. When you come on this site and start perpetuating ideas about "spiritual realities" and curses you only empower the family and any lingering psycholgical control they have over us poor saps that grew up there. If you want to sell your soul to some other fucked up psychological control modality then go ahead. However, you would be better served to stop spewing incoherent spirit babble and come on board to try for a civilization with rest of us. Then again your mind is probably too weak for cold hard reality and is safer locked up in a religious microcosm. Suit yourself... (reply to this comment)

From Webel Thursday, January 08, 2004, 22:39 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes "reality" without God and being full of cynicism IS cold and hard - it can be YOUR "reality" if you want to - it's no skin off my nose believe me! - when I had prayer there was a dramatic change in my life and THIS is the undisputed truth and nobody can deny what happened in MY life. Therefore, I write and believe whatever I want - if you don't like it bad luck - I am writing what I feel for those who are interested in LISTENING and perhaps talking about what they believe not time wasters who slate my article but off but have nothing better to offer.(reply to this comment)

From Joe H Monday, January 12, 2004, 17:00 (Agree/Disagree?) "nobody can deny what happened in my life" I canand will! See if you can stop me!(reply to this comment)

From Joe H Monday, January 12, 2004, 13:00 (Agree/Disagree?) Webel, if your logic about "curses" is correct, then the Family must have blessed me, 'cause my life is going quite well. Or maybe they were having one word prayers and someone in the circle spaced out and accidentally prayed for me to have a good day. With enough members, it's safe to assume that some sleep deprived 15 year old is praying for me on a daily basis! PTL!(reply to this comment)

From exister Monday, January 12, 2004, 13:23 (Agree/Disagree?) LOL Joe! I had totally forgetton about those goofy one word prayer session. Ah, the weird memories this site brings back. hatlaberectelopitufigendo, PTL, TYJ (Awkward Silence) Yielding... Love... Spirit... IGNORANCE! Endtime... Word... OPPRESSION! Should have done it while I was there. Oh well.(reply to this comment)

From Sonderval Friday, January 09, 2004, 03:38 (Agree/Disagree?) "Yes "reality" without God and being full of cynicism IS cold and hard" Actually mine is rather nice, I'm enjoying it thoroughly, can't say as I've found it particularly cold and hard, sorry you did though. See it's this kind of assumption about everyone's reality that are annoying people here, you're free to believe whatever you wish, just please don't make sweeping statements like that if you don't want people to think you're presuming to speak for them.(reply to this comment)

from Sir Rantalot Wednesday, January 07, 2004 - 17:16 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm loving the dispute on this topic! faith vs rationalism, the debate continues!! Faith is another way of saying, I really don't have a fucking clue about what I'm on about, and neither does my pastor, but it sure stops the doubts from coming. I can instantly note the spark in someone's eyes who has faith in a monothiestic religion, this spark is the same I see in a convinced neo-nazi or a hardcore left-winger. It's the sparkle of the slave who has found his master, whom he unquestioningly will follow into the abyss. it is glorified ignorance. It is the look of positive, enlightened, stupidity. Btw, Weber, I also did the Drugs, sex and alcohol thing, and faced my pain head on, discovered with psychedelics the causes and learned I could change whatever I wanted to change in myself. I learned personality is an illusion. I learned of the certainty of uncertainty. I killed my ego, then built it up again, then started all over, I learned in life the only thing to fear is fear itself. I learned that to learn anything new I had to do the thing my fake ego was most repulsed by, I had to delve into my dark side to discover that there is no dark side, only impulsive behaviour that stems from not fully understanding ones self. I learned that there is nothing new you can learn, that isn't already inside you, nothing that a god can give you that you don't already have inside yourself, you just have to dig for it... I learned of the futility of attempting to "enlighten" others... Yes, I can say, the house of wisdom is on the road of excess, and there are no gods, but man. (reply to this comment)

From Wolf Thursday, January 08, 2004, 14:05 (Agree/Disagree?) That’s one way of defining faith. My definition is: belief in something you’re convinced of but can’t prove. Luckily for us, Edison had faith that an electric light bulb could be made. And Gillette believed a razor blade could be made from steel, despite an MIT graduate telling him it was impossible. These inventors were able to substantiate their faith and produce beneficial results. Others believe in things that are not true and will never be substantiated. How exactly does faith in a deity differ from faith in a physical or mechanical possibility? Some individuals claim that they receive specific, tangible benefits from a deity. If you contradict them without disproving their claims, you are a bigot. Why is faith a weakness? In my opinion it is the stepping stone towards progress, the thing that separates the ordinary from the spectacular. (reply to this comment)

From Joe H Monday, January 12, 2004, 17:03 (Agree/Disagree?) Right, so when a girl smiles at me from across the bar, I have to have faith that I can get in her pants even though I can't immediately prove my prediction to be true? Do you see how stupid your metaphor is?(reply to this comment)

From Wolf Tuesday, January 13, 2004, 01:26 (Agree/Disagree?) If you have faith that you'll get in her pants your chances of succeeding are about 500% better. But like I said, if your faith is based on something solid (like you being a charming guy) it will be substantiated, and if it’s not ... where was that playboy mag?(reply to this comment)

From Albatross Monday, January 12, 2004, 17:17 (Agree/Disagree?) Joe H. I have no idea what Wolf is talking about....but come on dude..."when a girl smiles at me from across the bar"? Can't you come up with a less outlandish senario to use in this argument? ;P (reply to this comment)

From Wolf Tuesday, January 13, 2004, 01:47 (Agree/Disagree?) Actually, Joe's example is just fine. Faith is useful in almost any scenario.(reply to this comment)

From exister Monday, January 12, 2004, 17:48 (Agree/Disagree?) Deeper down the drain we go! Here goes: When I reach into my pants I have faith that I am going to find myself there.(reply to this comment)

From Sonderval Tuesday, January 13, 2004, 06:09 (Agree/Disagree?) *considers making disparaging remark about your size but doesn't* meh, too many crude jokes . . so . . little . . time . . . . . .(reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Friday, January 09, 2004, 16:37 (Agree/Disagree?) These inventors were able to substantiate their "faith" (and I use the term loosley in this case) with results. An unproven idea, opinion, fact, or hypotheses remains unproven idea, opinion, fact, or hypothesis with out something substantial to back it up. It may be difficult or impossible to concretley disprove the actual existence of a god or a religion claiming to follow said god, but it is very possible to disprove many of the ideas, beliefs, and texts derived from the belief in such god.(reply to this comment)

From Wolf Saturday, January 10, 2004, 03:39 (Agree/Disagree?) You’re absolutely right. Once these inventors substantiated their beliefs, faith was no longer required. In any case, though, there was a period of time between the idea’s inception and realization when faith played an important role. (reply to this comment)

From Sonderval Monday, January 12, 2004, 01:54 (Agree/Disagree?) Just to clarify though, if an inventor had an idea which he could never prove nor disprove and could never lead yield any practical applications (for arguments sake) he'd kinda have to drop it and invent something else. I think there's a distinction between having an idea which you try to bring into reality and belief in an unprovable abstract, there is more than one meaning for faith, it all comes down to context.(reply to this comment)

From Hanna_Black Tuesday, January 13, 2004, 09:07 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree! To me, there seems to be a difference between saying, a) "I have faith that I can invent a machine that washes dishes! It might take me 10 years!" ...or B) I have faith that I can invent self-washing dishes...might take me 40 + years and/or never! ...or C) I have faith that when I click my heels three times, 12 green leprechauns will appear and wash my dishes! You may never be able to prove/disprove that last "faith", but hey, who would share it?(reply to this comment)

From Wolf Tuesday, January 13, 2004, 11:27 (Agree/Disagree?) You’re right! Like I said, some believe in things that are not true and will never be substantiated. Even misplaced faith can be helpful, though. If you believe the green leprechauns will help you run faster, you probably will. It’s like the placebo effect. I won’t get into the ways misplaced faith can be harmful because everyone who has experience with the cult knows... (reply to this comment)

From Sonderval Tuesday, January 13, 2004, 11:57 (Agree/Disagree?) I think what we've got here is a language thing, see I also have faith in my abilities, I have faith that the plans I set in motion will succeed, but this 'faith' is based on substantive, tangible proof (my past successes) and on a logical progression of thought, I also allow for my own failures and know that not all my plans will succeed (probably), it's not total and absolute belief and worship in an unprovable abstract that cannot ever have any tangible proof (which is how many see religion). It's a bit like comparing a love of Doritos to love of your wife, although both are true and they're both love, they're worlds apart. I do agree with your point that if someone believes in something different to you and you can't prove that they're incorrect to denounce them in the absence of proof is bigotry, which I think is your central point and which I totally agree with. I think the whole 'faith' thing is a bit of a sidetrack which is as well left alone, it all comes down to semantics and there's not a lot to be gained from that.(reply to this comment)

From Webel Wednesday, January 07, 2004, 18:20 (Agree/Disagree?) You seem to be satisfied with your conclusions. Ok. I respect that. Christ didn't come for those who are satisfied but for those who are spiritually bankrupt and are looking for the truth. He is the way the truth and the life, the bread of life for those who search for it. I do not believe for a second that it's futile to tell others what I have found or to enlighten them. I wrote with understanding and compassion - knowing what you were all subjected to and how it makes you feel, at the same time knowing that some of you are searching for the God you genuinely loved as a child but were torn away from him because of the corruption you were raised in. Being denied of roots anywhere but TF, I am thankful this website brings me to my roots - lets face it, no one will be able to understand us as we understand each other, and it's ok to have different points of view.(reply to this comment)

From Anthony Friday, January 09, 2004, 16:32 (Agree/Disagree?) Webel, I seriously am curious to know what you, for whom Jesus is real, the utmost and personal, feel about those you believe crucified him, that is, the Jewish Elders and Pontius Pilate. I actually am passively curious to know what all modern day followers of Christ individually feel about his executors. Now I’m sure some will say that if Jesus can forgive them, so can they, but I’m really hoping for something not so clichéd. If Jesus were to come back, say tomorrow at the eleventh hour, and I killed him, and I certainly would, I’m sure a very interesting stream of events would ensue. And if Jesus hadn’t been crucified, would he still be walking the earth today, like a “good” version of Lestat de Lioncourt or the Highlander? Of course, I don’t expect you to answer this last question, I’m just thinking/typing out loud. But, if Jesus really does come back, then I can only assume that his initial executors botched the job, and though we have different intellectual reasons for wanting him gone, I would have to make sure that the second time I do it right. Decapitation is often a good solution for keeping the dead asleep, and a good burning at the stake is nothing to get all choked up about. But then again, last X-mas, Santa didn't seem to like the fact that I rigged my chimney so that once you're in it there is no way out, and then I lit the fire. Guess, I can't ask him now. What can I say? I wanted a black Santa.(reply to this comment)

From tommyknocker Monday, January 12, 2004, 11:50 (Agree/Disagree?) Anthony you are amazing! I'd do anything for a look into your mind.(reply to this comment)

From exister Monday, January 12, 2004, 12:17 (Agree/Disagree?) So, what must tommyknocker do to look into Anthony's mind, or his pants?(reply to this comment)

From Webel Saturday, January 10, 2004, 15:43 (Agree/Disagree?) In answer to your question: What the Jewish elders and Pontius Pilate did to Jesus was only fulfilling a series of events that had already been foretold by the prophets in the scriptures. Jesus says the following about his life: No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself, I have the power to lay it down and I have the power to take it again Jn 10:18. So what I BELIEVE (note the emphasis) is that they were merely chess pieces playing the part they were supposed to so the prophesy could be fulfilled - Psalm 22 was written years before his birth and yet it describes in intricate detail his suffering on the cross. As for the going on about ways to kill people and the rigged chimney, I am presuming this part was just bizarre rhetoric.(reply to this comment)

From Anthony Sunday, January 11, 2004, 18:53 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree with what Neez and Wolf said in reply, and I also add that your answer begs the following question: Did Jesus commit suicide? And the answer is not recondite. We all have the power to lay down our own lives, and people do for a myriad of reasons, some considered noble and other not; however, at the end of the day, it's still suicide, and I'm not making an endorsement or condemnation of suicide. But one will naturally wonder why the Almighty had to kill himself to make a point. Finally, if Jesus didn't commit suicide, but instead, man took it from him, what he said couldn't be done, that would make Jesus a liar, or simply a very confused and sexually delusional young man, poor guy. But religious suicide is not a new phenomenon, if at all. And when we look at Massada, it would seem that some of the Jews of that time didn't have a problem with that. And I wasn't talking about killing people in general, I was specifically talking about Jesus, Santa, and I may as well add Lucifer in there as well. I'll kill Easter but keep the cute little bunny. :)(reply to this comment)

From Wolf Monday, January 12, 2004, 00:40 (Agree/Disagree?) "sexually delusional" -- are you sure you're not confusing Jesus with David Berg?(reply to this comment)

From Webel Sunday, January 11, 2004, 20:09 (Agree/Disagree?) Suicide by definition is when you kill yourself not when someone kills you. Jesus was killed however he willingly laid down his life - please refer to what I said above about his life "I have the power to lay it down or take it back again". I don't need to tell you what the Bible says in the book of Isaiah about Christ being led as a lamb to the slaughter because I'm sure you already know it...Faith is the necessary ingredient to become a Christian so none of this will make sense without faith - if you have a genuine interest in what I believe it would be my pleasure to answer any of your questions, but if you are going to have a cynical approach with sarcastic undertones, I have much better things to do.(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Monday, January 12, 2004, 11:42 (Agree/Disagree?) Webel, a bit of advice, save it. I mean that in all kindness. Just as someone else so insightfully commented to me in this thread, sometimes you have to choose your battles. It's just not worth it. Some people just want to fight and criticize because they have nothing of their own to offer, so they spend all damn day on this website making inane comments on others people's writing, thoughts or comments. Losers, Webel. It's really pointless. Your time is more important than that. Now I am not refering to insightful debate with people on this site who have a lot to offer in regards to ideas and arguments, which often make me think twice about my own ideas, even when they differ. That is totally different. I guess you can tell the difference. Just don't let it drain you is all I'm saying. Again, there are A LOT of very quick and intelligent people here who constantly provoke me to think, but there are others who if you saw who you were arguing with, you probably wouldn't bother or even speak to them if you met them in a bar. (reply to this comment)

From Wolf Monday, January 12, 2004, 15:39 (Agree/Disagree?) So the people who post the most on this web site are the biggest losers? Interesting.(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Monday, January 12, 2004, 15:59 (Agree/Disagree?) No, just you.(reply to this comment)

From Webel Monday, January 12, 2004, 15:26 (Agree/Disagree?) Thanks for the advice Nancy, I agree with you wholeheartedly.(reply to this comment)

From exister Monday, January 12, 2004, 12:15 (Agree/Disagree?) Yeah, put it in some Tupperware, burp it and save it. Nancy, I'd speak to you if I saw you in a bar... baby... (reply to this comment)

From neez Sunday, January 11, 2004, 06:05 (Agree/Disagree?) I guess that makes you a pawn.(reply to this comment)

From Wolf Saturday, January 10, 2004, 23:06 (Agree/Disagree?) So Berg and Zerby may just be chess pieces playing out a role predestined by some prophecy (Like maybe one of Nostradamus’ prophecies about a bearded Satan)? Since Berg was just fulfilling destiny by molesting his daughter, it wasn’t really a crime ... have you thought about the consequences of this kind of reasoning?(reply to this comment)

From farmer Sunday, January 11, 2004, 07:45 (Agree/Disagree?) Predestination is IMO not the easiest subject of the Bible (e.g Romans 9)...yet I'd venture out to say, that Berg & Zerby, FGAs etc. are an awfully "good" example of what can all go wrong if you mix up application, deeper or obvious meaning of its verses. However I doubt, you find a direct prophecy about them in history (too bad I don't have the Bible-Code-computerprogram, to check that out too, Michael Drosnin doesn't happen to be one of my friends), Berg's misinterpretation of the David prophecies apart... Your logic reminds me -sorry- of what a satanist claimed in a courtcase, he & his wife had cruelly murdered a friend of them...he claimed that he only did, what satan ordered him to do, reasoning that in a car accident you don't accuse the car either, therefore he thought of not being guilty. What do you say??? I think Berg hadn't understood morality the right way, so he serves as a bad example, with or without destiny to it...that's mighty deep...so it remains a crime, something wrong...whether he was a tool to show what's really wrong & awful is another chapter, probably concealed to the most of us what the details are concerned, taking into consideration that many here wouldn't agree to being a part in a plan ordained by a planner...for right now ; ) As for people on this thread easily mocking Jesus etc. & prophecies about Him, I`d suggest to thorougly check out Daniel 9:24-27 & due to our little understanding (please nobody feel offended , I didn`t notice yet any theologists here) a book like that of Josh McDowell "Evidence that demands a verdict" could be of great help, as it covers profoundly messianic prophecies as also that one & if you come back after really having understood that & still mock HIM, I could conclude, you might be predestined for that???!!!(reply to this comment)

From Wolf Sunday, January 11, 2004, 08:48 (Agree/Disagree?) Reread what I said. I was pointing out the holes in Webel's logic, not revealing my own.(reply to this comment)

From farmer Monday, January 12, 2004, 14:20 (Agree/Disagree?) Tx. Wolf for your patience with me, ( ain't deep, just ain't clear ; ) ...) Well, I try again: I see for Christians little, rather no alternative to argue, to reason but like Webel did...the prophecies are facts - by the way from the Qumranscrolls we know, that OT wasn't tempered with, also not by the followers of Jesus - so the fulfilments aren't they facts either? Whoever had a big part in it, seems to have had little choice of avoiding it...e.g Judas...Now about Berg etc we don't seem to have any prophecy that I know of, so the comparison wouldn't work as far as I am concerned...how much he, we etc. are predestined or liberal to choose is really a deep subject..But even Judas was sorry for what he did later, first though being a tool, part of the fulfilment of prophecy.... (yet many elders weren't very sorry at all it seems)Was Judas guilty??...That's at least how he felt, to my impression. I don't know how sorry Berg was before dying, was he????To me Berg was wrong, tool or no tool... I think he had super strong delusions which we receive rejecting the truth & it would have to be, that he was forced to reject them...By the way, how could there be anything but a doomsprophecy, somebody molesting etc. his own daughter?(reply to this comment)

From exister Friday, January 09, 2004, 16:40 (Agree/Disagree?) Anthony, you are morbidly hilarious! LOL!(reply to this comment)

From Sir Rantalot Thursday, January 08, 2004, 15:09 (Agree/Disagree?) No, I'm not ever fully satisfied with my conclusions, my latest post shows my moments of doubt("the Dark night of the soul"). I just never doubt myself or I know it's the end for me. I see your point of view though, and at the end of the day all roads lead to peace. Ciao, SR(reply to this comment)

From Webel Thursday, January 08, 2004, 22:40 (Agree/Disagree?) Yeah, I read it - pretty dark....(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Wednesday, January 07, 2004, 18:06 (Agree/Disagree?) Rating our own comments? Pathetic!(reply to this comment)

From Joe H Wednesday, January 07, 2004, 18:31 (Agree/Disagree?) Actually, I was the one who gave that comment a 5.(reply to this comment)

From Sonderval Wednesday, January 07, 2004, 17:29 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree with much of what you said there, but I'd add one thing to it from my own experience, hitting bottom is something that does really show you who and what you are, but once you've done that and you really understand your own motivations and see yourself for who and what you are, you don't need to be a slave to it any more, you learn to manipulate your own lower self and you gain a self control so total that most people can't even understand it, it is at that stage that the rational man will decide on his own morality, owing no allegiance to faith or creed but a set of ideals based entirely on what you decide is the person you choose to be. The end result does not have to be an amoral hedonistic atheist, although fine if that's what floats your boat, once you have really gone as low as you are capable of going and then kept on going down, you discover the true strength of the human spirit and what it is capable of, and from there anything is possible. Hrm, better quit this line of thought, all ends up sounding pretty arrogant unless you've gone through it yourself, and if you have then you don't need to be told, debate on the subject of belief is entirely futile, some things can never be taught by an external tutor.(reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Friday, January 09, 2004, 16:43 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree 100%! I hit bottom several years ago and no religious or spiritual fantasy can take credit for lifting me out! I did it on my own out of a strength I never knew I had. My strength, not anyone elses! I didn't need the crutch of "Jesus" or religion to fall back on.(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Wednesday, January 07, 2004, 18:16 (Agree/Disagree?) This is beautifully put! I know some atheists who have been through this and live better lives than most self-centered, hypocritical Christians. There is much to be said for the strength of the human spirit, religious belief completely aside.(reply to this comment)

From Sir Rantalot Wednesday, January 07, 2004, 17:48 (Agree/Disagree?) I understand you perfectly. No you do not sound arrogant at all, I think that language just doesn't have the words yet to express such a state, but it is a positive one. Pride, empathy and freedom being the key words, it is the absence of morality & restriction, and the beginning of understanding. cheers, SR(reply to this comment)

from Webel Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 16:20 (Agree/Disagree?) It is obvious to me that all of you are highly intelligent individuals and you have all been through so much. I understand the difficulty that some of you may have in believing that Christ is the only path to salvation but he is, the belief in him has to be an individual decision and a change of prespective to the way things were wrongfully taught in TF with their "sugar coated pill" mixing religion, God, faith and trust with control, wickedness and perversion. Nobody has the "perfect path" because nobody is perfect - it's a waste of time looking for perfection in an imperfect world! The only thing I am sure of is that Christ came into my life and nothing compares to the love and healing that I found in him. He is the one who is perfecting my way and this is achieved with baby steps, one day at a time. Religion is not supposed to be a group being controlled by rules and regulations and following one person - but should be hearts that are driven by the love of God, forgiveness and longing for those things that are graceful, pure and righteous. When he comes to our life Jesus Christ works within our souls giving us peace by accepting our imperfection whilst embracing the perfection of God. (reply to this comment)

From Sonderval Thursday, January 08, 2004, 01:38 (Agree/Disagree?) Just for the sake of balance I thought I'd mention that this comment is absolutely fine in my book, you state your beliefs here and say what your religion has done for you in a positive way, you do not presume to speak for everyone, you merely offer something that you found to be a help for anyone else who needs it. I just hope that anyone else who finds themselves in the position that you did and desires something to fill the void that they have been left with and cannot fill are as lucky as you. I completely agree with you that religion, whatever you decide, is an individual decision and those who find fulfilment and meaning through it should be respected and allowed to do so without interference from those who don't. Laters (reply to this comment)

From Joe H Tuesday, January 06, 2004, 19:06 (Agree/Disagree?) You say "Nobody has the perfect path because nobody is perfect," but don't Christians believe that Jesus is perfect? Shouldn't he, then, have the perfect path?(reply to this comment)

From Webel Wednesday, January 07, 2004, 16:41 (Agree/Disagree?) Didn't I say Christ was "perfecting my way"? yes I believe that the path of God is perfect - when I say nobody I mean people.(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Tuesday, January 06, 2004, 20:42 (Agree/Disagree?) Are you going to ask her next what is piety? I assume you've read Socrates and his circular arguments, as you seem to have as much education, if not more, than most of us. ;)(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Tuesday, January 06, 2004, 20:44 (Agree/Disagree?) BTW, tell your brother I said to get off his ass, unless he's out serving our country, which I suppose would be a good enough excuse, and remove that child sex comment out of the Trailer Park. Jesus! Where's an administrator when you need one? :)(reply to this comment)

From Joe H Wednesday, January 07, 2004, 14:35 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm in no position to speak for him, but maybe, just maybe, he's upholding the policy represented by the little blue ribbon at the bottom of the home page i.e. Free Speech! I don't like the comment either, but if it bugs you so much, why don't you just stay the hell out of the Trailer Park? There's an old saying "Morbid curiosity killed the Nan!"(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Monday, January 12, 2004, 16:03 (Agree/Disagree?) Stridently applying "Free Speech" without any true and thought-out understanding of its limits and constraints, leads to attracting scums to this site. They don't belong here. They're not ex-SGAs. They're either sexual predators or 12 year olds using daddy's computer after school. It degrades the website for just providing a medium for this fungus. Liability is also a concern because a website administrator can be liable for its content, especially when it turns to sex with children. The internet is crawling with authorities looking to prevent this. I've read about cases where individuals were prosecuted for providing links to sites with child pornography and other such garbage. Unlike, other material with sexual content, just possessing sexual material depicting or containing child images is a crime, which some investigations have reached across the Atlantic to pursue. Sexual material concerning children doesn't have to contain images in every case, either. People, have the guts to draw the line! The law will stand behind you. The test in the US for material which violates obscenity law is a multi-prong test which includes whether the content appeals to the prurient interest and whether it possess educational or intellectual value. Believe me, not all speech is protected. Lots of sexually explicit material is banned, especially in Canada, which has some of the most stringent pornography laws of a Western democracy. “In 1973, the Supreme Court pronounced that obscenity was an appropriate subject for law enforcement and established a test for defining "obscenity" in the landmark decision Miller v. California. The well-known three-pronged test set out by the Court to prohibit obscenity is: (a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” So, enough of the banging on and on about “Free Speech” without any real understanding. Free Speech is not unlimited and it has boundaries of which the average layperson is unaware. The funny thing is that most producers of sexually explicit material are on average more educated on the subject of obscenity and pornography law and the laws governing Free Speech than the common person on the street or kid on the internet wasting away the day visiting porn sites and blathering on internet boards. (reply to this comment)

From Joe H Monday, January 12, 2004, 16:55 (Agree/Disagree?) How is Canada, and its "most stringent pornography laws" relevant?(reply to this comment)

From Sonderval Monday, January 12, 2004, 16:34 (Agree/Disagree?) rock on, well said People have some weird idea's about freedom, freedom without limits is the freedom to have someone bigger than you come along and murder you in your sleep, freedom without limits is the freedom for some child-molester to snatch your kid from the park, freedom is possible only inside the bounds of a commonly defined morality, otherwise known as the law. Freedom of speech is subject to these same restraints for the same reasons, freedom without limits is anarchy, I always wonder how many armchair freedom-fighters would survive freedom if it ever broke out.(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Wednesday, January 07, 2004, 14:45 (Agree/Disagree?) I heard from him. He knows what he is doing and seems like a man with a plan. That comment is much like the one made by 7* about the sexual abuse suffered by Mene being okay. Free speech isn't always a complete pass. In fact, there are times when speech alone is criminal, ei. conspiracy, yelling fire in a crowded theater, making a bomb threat, etc. But, that's not the point. Revelling in criminal acts with children crosses the line, free speech aside. (reply to this comment)

From Anal_Commentator Wednesday, January 07, 2004, 04:39 (Agree/Disagree?) Don't you get a joke when you see one, Nancy? Your Political correctness is annoying, you could actually be an intelligent person otherwise. It take so little to get some people fuming, LOL!(reply to this comment)

From banal_commentator Wednesday, January 07, 2004, 11:40 (Agree/Disagree?) Your little stab at political correctness was a little more David Berg than Bill Maher. It wasn't ironic, witty, or remotely amusing. Tell me, do you have friends who laugh at your drab little sense of humour?? And also I told people to not make the anal_commentator joke, I wish you would get a different user name. (reply to this comment)

From Banshee Wednesday, January 07, 2004, 11:14 (Agree/Disagree?) Excuse me? Your "joke" was not something "so little." Besides it being offensive, vulgar and most of all distasteful (although as a parent I found it to be revolting and repulsive), you chose to joke about a subject--parental child abuse--that many of us on this site have had to live through. So to your alleged "joke", all I can say is--how dare you? It is not about "political correctness." It's about your own callousness in thinking people should laugh at something that is still very painful to many of them. (reply to this comment)

From Anal Commentator Wednesday, January 07, 2004, 16:50 (Agree/Disagree?) Ah, shame, did I offend you? Get on with life already!! Anal sex with 2 year olds? Does that come anywhere near anything in TF? Really! Go read some grandpa stories, your feeble mind can't handle much else.(reply to this comment)

From banal_commentator Thursday, January 08, 2004, 12:03 (Agree/Disagree?) LET'S ALL IGNORE "ANAL COMMENTATOR"(reply to this comment)

From Banshee Wednesday, January 07, 2004, 21:44 (Agree/Disagree?) Dude, you are missing the point. I did not say any one in TF ever experienced anal sex at two, nor anything near to that. I am just saying that your SUBJECT MATTER, which is parental child abuse, is simply not funny. It is especially not funny to people who might have had experiences that fall into the category of parental child abuse. And yes, joking about anally abusing your two year old son (even a fictional one) does offend me. And there is nothing shameful about that.(reply to this comment)

From Albatross Wednesday, January 07, 2004, 17:04 (Agree/Disagree?) Commentator: The repugnancy is that you should have joked about it in the first place. (reply to this comment)

From Nancy Wednesday, January 07, 2004, 10:14 (Agree/Disagree?) I could say the same to you. Can you not get a joke when you see one? I even made it real easy for you by adding a smiley face. Besides, you're the idiot that made that child sex comment. That's not funny! You have no idea what humor is. Ugh! Be gone. You could not be more stupid than to make such a comment here among those who know real sexual abuse. Not to mention, among parents, who would die for their children before they would let harm come to them. Grow the hell up! Your attempt at humor is base and offensive.(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Wednesday, January 07, 2004, 11:41 (Agree/Disagree?) Okay, I misunderstood you. I thought you were commenting on my comment to Joe H, which was made in a joking nature, hence the smiley. But, I see you were commenting on my response to your child sex comment in the Trialer Park. In that case, my second paragraph above sums up my thoughts on that.(reply to this comment)

From Albatross Tuesday, January 06, 2004, 18:49 (Agree/Disagree?) Webel, if I could venture an response to your above statement I would suggest that it is very much a mater of perspective. You suggest that "Christ is the only path to salvation." This implies that there is a universal understanding that salvation is a basic human need. But salvation from what? For what? For whom? I play a Chinese stratgy game called Wei'qi/Go. There is a large likeminded community of Wei'qi players. We get together in clubs, at houses, online, at coffee shops. We take in new players and teach them. When I am stressed and need to relax, I play. When I've had a bad day, I pull out the board and play. Wei'Qi has rules, a code of ethics, even divergent schools of thought. It has proverbs and a 3000 year old history. One could say it's sort of like a religion. But you can imagine that I might be laughed at if I were to say "I understand the difficulty that some of you may have in believing that Wei'qi is the only path to salvation but it is, the belief in Wei'qi has to be an individual decision." Strategy games are fun for me yes, but I know they are not for everybody. In talking about the game with someone who does not play it, my discussion of it is not predicated on the assumption that they consider game playing to be essential to their salvation and that they have just chosen to reject Wei'qi. It's for similar reason that I do not refer to myself as an atheist. While I don't believe in a god, it goes beyond that. I have no wish to define myself by my disbelief in someone else's superstition. I don't believe in Santa either, but I don't call myself an asantist. If it works for you good. But it perhaps simplifies it too much to suggest that somehow choosing not to believe in the christian god is a knee jerk reaction to having been raised in TF. (reply to this comment)

From Webel Wednesday, January 07, 2004, 16:38 (Agree/Disagree?) I understand what you are saying and it triggers a lot of people who left TF to talk about God. When I first left I decided not to believe in him and it was the darkest time of my life. I did a lot of things that I am not proud of because I had nothing and no one to stop me! no moral code by which to live my life, no love, no God - just nothingness. In answer to your question, we need to be saved from ourselves. Humanity needs the Messiah. That savior is the the Lord Jesus Christ. Whilst I understand that we need to take responsibility for our actions, at the same time we react in wrongful and sinful ways because of our hurt. He is the one who takes away our pain and the pain of the world if the world was to believe in him. The time is coming very soon where people won't have a choice anymore because the world is getting darker by the day - look at cloning! man wants to create and then destroy and be master of himself but that will be his ultimate demise. I believe very soon God is going to pull the plug on this evil. If you like your strategy game I understand, but it will not save you from fear, darkness, sickness and destruction. We had no choice about being born in TF but we have the choice to turn to God in spirit, truth and righteousness despite of being raised in the hell, lies and blasphemy TF created. There are some of you whose names are written in the palm of his hand (and you know it) and I pray you will turn back to him. (reply to this comment)

From exister Friday, January 09, 2004, 10:38 (Agree/Disagree?) Your argument is no longer cohesive: "we need to be saved from ourselves" "we need to take responsibility for our actions" If I need to be saved from myself then I certainly cannot be trusted to take responsibility for my own action. You are trying to ride the fence and pretend that there is some legitimate logic to your argument. Most people here are trying to be polite to you. I however am pressed for time and will tell you what I told the college preacher on the quad. You are a coward who is deathly afraid of the 3 implications of your existence. 1. You will die. 2. When you die your life will likely have meant nothing. 3. After you die you may be condemned to damnation by some heartless deity. The realization of these 3 possilibties has made you wet yourself, and now you are cowering in a belief structure to escape them. Why don't you grow a pair, accept these harsh possibilities and live your life to its full potential instead of squandering your energy fleeing from them.(reply to this comment)

From Webel Friday, January 09, 2004, 12:41 (Agree/Disagree?) Speak for yourself. You are assuming that is what I THINK when really those are the conclusions YOU found...in the abyss trying to sort your head out! I am not going there with you - sorry!(reply to this comment)

From exister Friday, January 09, 2004, 16:02 (Agree/Disagree?) Do you really expect me to buy into the "spiritual realities" that you achieved as the result of a mental breakdown? Just because you have achieved psychological stasis doesn't mean your ramblings have any intrinsic value. It is a damn shame that you broke, but it doesn't mean the rest of us will. Hard labor never broke me nor did the hard cold realities of human existence. Fundamentally all that many of us have is our scarred, but unbroken selves. It is an insult to imagine that we would now prostrate ourselves before the very tool that was used to oppress us. Sod off already!(reply to this comment)

From Webel Saturday, January 10, 2004, 15:56 (Agree/Disagree?) I am not even going to bother answering this. You need to take a chill pill. Relax. Take a deep breath. You will feel much better. It's all good. Peace.(reply to this comment)

From neez Wednesday, January 07, 2004, 19:08 (Agree/Disagree?) There's absolutely nothing new here. It's just the same old paranoid dellusions recycled by christians for centuries. Why can't you at least find something original to be afraid of? & whats your big answer to the worlds many problems? Fuck 'em! Or as you put it.. "I believe very soon God is going to pull the plug on this evil." & where are you going to be when all this goes down? I suppose you'll be off floating around somewhere, zapping all your evil ex boyfriends & any adult shops you see on the way. The way the world will probably end will be some impatient christians getting their hand on some virus. But seriously, that's really no way to live your life. Hanging around waiting for the end of humanity didn't work for our parents. How boring.(reply to this comment)

From Sonderval Wednesday, January 07, 2004, 17:11 (Agree/Disagree?) As far as needing to be saved from fear darkness and destruction and christianity being the only way, I personally chose to deal with my issues like an adult, head on, I faced up to my past, in it's totallity, I faced up to the world as I found it, I have gotten past the dark time that I had after leaving the family and am now one of the happiest people I know, I am well adjusted and successful with the most beautiful baby boy you could hope to see. Saying that happiness is impossible without christ is not only patently blind in the face of all the evidence to the contrary it is also offensive to those of us who have found happiness outside of your belief system. I repeat, I have no problem with your belief, but kindly don't ram it down others throats and tell them it's the only way to happiness, peace, fulfilment or whatever else it's given you. Your a christian, it seems to have given you some moral direction that you couldn't come up with on your own, great, I respect the role it plays in your life and wouldn't dream of attempting to rip away your religion from you, just please don't presume that your answer will work for everyone here, many of us neither need nor desire religion, offer us the same respect we offer you. Thank you.(reply to this comment)

From Webel Thursday, January 08, 2004, 14:55 (Agree/Disagree?) Again, this was not intended to cause offense but talk about what my views are. Saying that fulfilment can only be found in Christ is the truth that I believe, as I also believe many of you are looking for God and for answers and what I have written here is for those who choose to accept it - with due respect, can you see the difference? congratulations for having a beautiful baby boy. I am pleased to hear that you have found happiness, and peace and I do respect the points of view of anyone who cares to share them with me - what happened to the art of agreeing to differ without taking it so personally?(reply to this comment)

From Webel Thursday, January 08, 2004, 16:10 (Agree/Disagree?) PS - why is talking about beliefs called ramming religion down people's necks? I am not forcing anyone to believe as I do! after being beaten to submission to love and follow "big brother Berg" I think everyone here has the intelligence to know the difference between words and being treated like a heretic because you have other views. (reply to this comment)

From Sonderval Friday, January 09, 2004, 04:00 (Agree/Disagree?) It becomes ramming it down people's necks when you try to speak for everyone rather than just for yourself, a few examples of this would be as follows, "In answer to your question, we need to be saved from ourselves. Humanity needs the Messiah." I think you'll find that you needed to be saved from yourself and that you need the Messiah, I'm doing fine and so are many others, why do you think you speak for us? "Whilst I understand that we need to take responsibility for our actions, at the same time we react in wrongful and sinful ways because of our hurt. He is the one who takes away our pain and the pain of the world if the world was to believe in him. " Who is we? If you don't clarify who you are talking about then people assume you are speaking for everyone here, which is what that sentence is doing, I personally feel that the way I react to events and live my life is just fine and it won't be improved by believing in your religion. "The time is coming very soon where people won't have a choice anymore because the world is getting darker by the day - look at cloning! man wants to create and then destroy and be master of himself but that will be his ultimate demise." This is your opinion, it is not one shared by me so I disagreed with it, pretty politely as well, I didn't take it personally, I didn't lose my temper with you, I am not doing so now, you have simply stated a few things as fact when they are more correctly your opinion, I pointed that out, you have spoken for everyone when in fact you should have spoken for yourself and your fellow christians, I objected to that, very politely and reasonably. You may or may not have noticed, but I have not flamed your main post in any way, I respect your right to have a different set of beliefs to me, I even replied on another one of your comments that I didn't disagree with what you'd said there, as it had been stated as your opinion rather than hard fact, my reply above was in reply to your comment where you made several sweeping statements I disagreed with, please re-read them and realise my original intent. Thanks (reply to this comment)

From Webel Friday, January 09, 2004, 12:37 (Agree/Disagree?) Ok Mr Sonderval I shall watch how I phrase things in the future and exchange the "we" for "me" - and thank you for not losing your temper I wouldn't want you to beat the crap out of the keyboard and monitor on my account:-)(reply to this comment)

From Sonderval Friday, January 09, 2004, 14:10 (Agree/Disagree?) cool :D Just didn't want you to think I'd taken offence at your religion, misunderstandings on a BB are easy. ; ) Laters (reply to this comment)

From Webel Saturday, January 10, 2004, 16:21 (Agree/Disagree?) Evidently. People here seem to argue and take stabs at each other more than anything else - some things people say here should be saved for the pub with a couple of pints with the lads - Life is too short to argue. Rather boring to be honest. Cheers.(reply to this comment)

From Albatross Saturday, January 10, 2004, 17:12 (Agree/Disagree?) Actually Web, I think that may apply only to those who perpetually loose arguments. For those who love to engage in the rigorous give and take of a bracing debate or argument, life is too short not to argue. I've always been amused by those who present strong opinions with scant supporting evidence, but when challenged, retreat to crying foul and decrying the lack of freedom of speech. Rather boorish to be honest. Cheers.(reply to this comment)

From Webel Sunday, January 11, 2004, 20:27 (Agree/Disagree?) I am not refering to the healthy debate voicing different points of view, I am talking about some of the disgusting and downright offensive things people say about each other here - read up and down some of these posts and I am sure you will know what I mean. For the record I don't believe an argument can ever be lost if you are true to what you believe - you can certainly step down and agree to disagree or maybe even change your mind if the other persons argument is coherent, well thought out and intelligent - why not be supportive instead of ripping into each other? didn't TF do a good enough job of that already? surely it's possible to disagree with people without being insulting and derogative.(reply to this comment)

From Sonderval Monday, January 12, 2004, 02:01 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree with you completely here, but what you said before was "Life is too short to argue. Rather boring to be honest. Cheers." Which is what Albatross and myself were replying to, you really need to work on saying what you mean I think.(reply to this comment)

From Webel Monday, January 12, 2004, 15:24 (Agree/Disagree?) Arguing to me means insults and abuse and talking bringing up other people's personal life and shaming them on this site - debate on the other hand is respectfully exchanging different and even opposing points of view - it is an art in itself. If I had a problem with debating I would have said life is too short to debate - see the difference? so I will have to disagree with you Mr Sonderval I don't think I need to work on saying what I mean because I already said it...there seems to be some real twisted competition to see who is the best verbal abuser and who has the last word - having the last word it's really not important to me, trampling on others to make oneself look better is a sign of weakness.(reply to this comment)

From Sonderval Monday, January 12, 2004, 16:22 (Agree/Disagree?) ar·gu·ment 1. A discussion in which disagreement is expressed; a debate. A quarrel; a dispute. 2. A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood: presented a careful argument for extraterrestrial life. A fact or statement put forth as proof or evidence; a reason: The current low mortgage rates are an argument for buying a house now. A set of statements in which one follows logically as a conclusion from the others. Synonyms: argument, dispute, controversy These nouns denote discussion involving conflicting points of view. Argument stresses the advancement by each side of facts and reasons intended to persuade the other side: Emotions are seldom swayed by argument. Dispute implies animosity: A dispute arose among union members about the terms of the new contract. Controversy applies especially to major differences of opinion involving large groups of people: The use of nuclear power is the subject of widespread controversy. Taken from http://dictionary.reference.com/ I wasn't talking about what argument meant to you, I was talking about what the word actually means. What I read when I saw your statement there was that you had a problem with people disagreeing with you, because that is what you said, what you meant to say was obviously something different, fair enough, I accept your clarification, but don't go accusing people of being verbal abusers because YOU didn't put something clearly and caused confusion. I'm not that bothered about having the last word, I do however like to get a matter resolved before letting it go, I am a rationalist, I think argument/debate/discussion is essential to the healthy exchange of ideas, therefore I applauded someone defending it and still do. I repeat, be more clear, if you don't know what the words you are using mean then be prepared for people to misunderstand you, I'm not talking about spelling and grammar, those are understandable for people with a bad education, I'm talking about the basic meaning of words, we are not at fault here for this misunderstanding, you are, don't lash out at people unless you know what you're talking about. Laters (reply to this comment)

From Webel Monday, January 12, 2004, 21:52 (Agree/Disagree?) Whatever.(reply to this comment)

From Sonderval Sunday, January 11, 2004, 10:52 (Agree/Disagree?) lol beautifully put, nice one, good to see someone sticking up for healthy debate while I'm away. :D (reply to this comment)

From just a thought... Thursday, January 08, 2004, 16:41 (Agree/Disagree?) I myself believe in Jesus. But on the other hand, I do understand the strong reactions of rejection people have on this site to anyone talking about religion in a strong way, especially in a "testimony" style. I understand because, regardless of my beliefs, I feel the same way. For me, I think it might be from so many years of being preached to, testimonied to, lectured to, and having things "rammed down our throat", that I just take a strong reaction to anything that might sway in that direction. I'm not even saying you were doing this, I'm just saying that anything remotely religious can be taken like this. Maybe we're all a little more "sensitive" to things like that because of our upbringing. Like the old saying, "Once burned, twice shy." That's just my thought on that. Take care, Webel, and most of all, I am so happy for you that you have found a place of peace and love in your life and heart. As everyone always says...whatever makes you happy! Ha! God bless... (reply to this comment)

From Albatross Wednesday, January 07, 2004, 17:01 (Agree/Disagree?) Wow, there is no logic that can be brought to bear to answer that. Therein lays the beauty of religion; no proof at all is required no matter how outlandish the claim. (reply to this comment)

From Hanna_Black Wednesday, January 07, 2004, 07:16 (Agree/Disagree?) "...it perhaps simplifies it too much to suggest that somehow choosing not to believe in the christian god is a knee jerk reaction to having been raised in TF." yes, yes, YES, YEEES!!!! OMG, I think I just had an orgasm...! ;-) (reply to this comment)

From Anoni Thursday, January 08, 2004, 15:31 (Agree/Disagree?) You are one sick individual.(reply to this comment)

From Sir Rantalot Wednesday, January 07, 2004, 04:42 (Agree/Disagree?) Well said!(reply to this comment)

From Sonderval Wednesday, January 07, 2004, 01:18 (Agree/Disagree?) completely off topic but then I've already stated my response to this topic and said I don't debate religion, but I was wondering if you could tell me more about the Wei'qi club you're a member of and if it's international? I've always had a particular fascination with the game but have never met a player, I wish to be taught how to play, I tried playing against a computer but there was no feedback or instruction involved and the games were wooden and mechanical, it didn't have the artistic quality that I feel this game possesses.(reply to this comment)

From Albatross Wednesday, January 07, 2004, 11:43 (Agree/Disagree?) Hey Sonderval, I'm really still a humble novice at the altar of the game. (I'll refer to it hereafter as Go) I think you are right, because of the almost infinate variation of Go problems, computers don't do well for full games. In fact, unlike chess, computers have never beaten a Go Master. But computer play is great for practice and especially for beginners. I'll give you some great site links below, but the thing to do is to after reading the rules, start practicing the problems the sites provide. You can be graded, shown where to move next, optimal moves, and practice problems that are graded by difficulty. I know that the Uk has some history of Go playing. http://www.britgo.org/index.html The thing about learning is that it only comes through practice. In the grand scheme of things, I'll never be a great player when balanced against those who have been playing and trained since childhood, but the mental stimulation I get will keep me entertained for a lifetime. here are some good sites: http://gobase.org/ My favorite: http://www.goproblems.com/ http://www.well.com/user/mmcadams/gointro.html#equip http://senseis.xmp.net/?BeginnerStudySection (reply to this comment)

From Sonderval Wednesday, January 07, 2004, 11:57 (Agree/Disagree?) cheers mate, really appreciate that, will give em a go when I get some time, gotta get more time, more time *walks away muttering*(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Tuesday, January 06, 2004, 20:39 (Agree/Disagree?) I don't think I've ever disagreed with you, Daniel, but I have to here. It's not so much even that I disagree with you than I disagree with the way you present your position. It is not possible to compare someone's faith to a strategy game. You are imposing upon her faith, something very esoteric and intangible, the same constraints and predetermined criteria that you are arguing against. Having been forced fed religion all our lives, the one thing we should have by now is respect for another's belief. Just as not having any faith is a personal choice and must be respected, so is having faith. It is a very delicate subject. Having cut our teeth on some very complex arguments and ideas since we were young, we must be cautious where and when we choose to use our abilities to reason. Faith by definition defies what is tangible and can be explained. It does not lend itself to logical explanation. Just as we do not want to be labeled and defined by someone else's beliefs, so, too, we must not pass too harsh judgment on those who have fledgling belief in "superstition." Especially here, there does not seem to be the judgmental tone in her arguments that rubs most non-Christians the wrong way. No one knows the path or the absolute truth or the answers for another person because they are relative and personal to that particular person. God, or faith in any deity or absence of faith in a deity, is not one size fits all. What I guess I am saying is tolerance is important because religion is such a delicate and personal subject. Having never been treated in childhood and as young adults with the respect that all humans are owed to the right to their OWN beliefs, we have to be cautious not to reverse discriminate. If someone is coming here proposing to interpret for another what is the "truth", then by all means, rip them apart with your sharp mind. But if we are talking about one of us, one of the very few of us, who went through all we did and still has some shred of religion which is primarily based on empathy and compassion for others who have experienced similar abuses and exploitation, and that belief is personal to oneself and how they think and relate to others in a tolerant manner for others rights, then I think some respect must be given, not agreement, just respect. Personally, I think it is offensive to propose to have absolute truth. I think it is illogical and contradictory to think only those English speaking Protestants who accept the idea of salvation and read the King James version of the Bible have the truth and are somehow special or blessed. There exists good in the world outside of a WASP lifestyle. There exists faith outside of a Christian framework. I also love an atheist. His tolerance of my faith helps me question, FOR MYSELF, what I believe and better understand what is my own and what I am parroting out of indoctrination. I think the terms lawyer and Christian are dirty words and have been given bad names. Yet, I can still personally practice law and my faith as long as I do not infringe on the rights of others. It is the same for the civil rights we enjoy under the Constitution and human rights under international law and natural law. We enjoy freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, freedom of press and all the rest, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others to the same freedoms, which includes freedom from someone else's religious beliefs or lack thereof.(reply to this comment)

From Sir Rantalot Wednesday, January 07, 2004, 16:57 (Agree/Disagree?) Jesus, can you talk a lot of melodramatic, drawn out KAK(shite)! Blah, blah, blah, etc Yes, nancy, you are the dream of perfection & balance all of us strive to achieve. We should start a Nancy fan club. You are the greatest! A Lawyer! A good, upright citizen! A Christian! You are the epitome of enlightenment, why don't you fuck off while you're at it too! Lord, help me to me more self absorbed like Nancy.... (reply to this comment)

From tonsopuns Thursday, January 08, 2004, 09:10 (Agree/Disagree?) Found out "kak" was a real word the other day, its actually "Kacke" means "Shit" in German. Great huh? Interesting to find a live topic, couldnt find any last time I was on this site, a lot of interesting subject matter, wish I had time to be as prosiac in my responses as others, story of my life though - Sonderval has already expressed my thoughts better than I could myself, what a kacke.(reply to this comment)

From Sir Rantalot Thursday, January 08, 2004, 15:23 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes, it also means shit in Africaans.(reply to this comment)

From Sonderval Thursday, January 08, 2004, 09:19 (Agree/Disagree?) Pleasure to be of service, now make me a cup of tea. *poke* (reply to this comment)

From Nancy Wednesday, January 07, 2004, 18:05 (Agree/Disagree?) No one is talking to you, dumbass! Don't you wish you could be anything like me? Don't you have some floor to sweep or some dishes to clear in your path to mediocrity?(reply to this comment)

From Sir Rantalot Thursday, January 08, 2004, 07:52 (Agree/Disagree?) Yessus, you have got a bloated ego! I think you come on this site mainly to display to everyone here how you "made it". In almost every long-winded post of yours you repeat how you are a lawyer, blah blah. You use every topic on this site as a platform for going off on a tangent on some great aspect of your life. No one, especially some of the people here still resolving cult-related issues, care to hear someone else's bragging. Take the the bragging away, and you really don't have much original to say that hasn't already been repeated here 100 times over. It's funny to see you assume I have choosen the "path of mediocrity" simply because unlike you, I don't use this site to brag of my achievements. I may not have a degree yet, but for a 21-yr old I have a list of achievements which most who know me envy, but I won't play your dick sizing game of comparing great connections and degrees. I usually end up having others blowing my horn, because the more I see and achieve, the more I realize how much I could yet be doing. You won't grow much more, emotionally or mentally, you've arrived, in your arrogance and self-satisfaction, congratulations! (reply to this comment)

From Nancy Thursday, January 08, 2004, 09:41 (Agree/Disagree?) Ya think you might be reading something into my comments based on something bothering you? Projection, maybe? Because anyone who knows me knows I'm far from what you claim. I admit all the damn time I don't have a clue what's going on most of the time. My whole f'ing life has been lived trial and error style. I got knocked up out of wedlock due to a failed method of birth control. I know what it's like not to have the money for the damn rent. Dude, do you really think you know me based on my comments to someone else? At 21, it's kind of hard to make sense of anything, but we sure think we know what's what. And another thing, when you've been through the ringer and still managed to make it and have a well-adjusted child, then come back and tell me your blather about arrogance. Until then, your comments mean nothing because they're not based on any experience. When you've achieved what you have in your life due to no one's help but your own grit, then you can presume to pass your 21-year-old judgment on me, punk. If my style of relating issues to my own experiences, which is what most, if not all, people do, as well, bothers you, then don't read my comments, since I wasn't talking to you anyway. (reply to this comment)

From Anoni Thursday, January 08, 2004, 15:31 (Agree/Disagree?) Nancy, I think you are one heck of a gal even though I don't know you but I think you fight too much - just an observation, why don't you let these idiots run out of steam all by themselves? they will soon get tired of all their banalities - I mean it's the same boring s*** over and over again isn't it? BOOOring! life is waaay to short to get all bent like this girl!(reply to this comment)

From Sir Rantalot Thursday, January 08, 2004, 12:36 (Agree/Disagree?) I knew you would pounce on my being only 21, you sly lawyer. :) I passed judgement about from what I read you constantly posting here, of course there is more to you than what your comments are here. This is a freaking discussion board, if all I talk about here is chicks, booze and my homies, wouldn't you assume I'm a bit superficial? I have every right to make assumptions of your projected internet identity, you posted it anyways. Well, if you're using that "you-don't-really-know-me" card, then I'll turn it right back on you. No, I'm not a kiddie lamer who doesn't know what it's like to be pennyless and friendless and , I choose to do things on my own, I've been working since I was 16, I've had corporate jobs with more responsibility than most 21 year-olds out there would ever dream about. What a predictible response, underplaying my experience because of my age. Learning to express yourself proberly and not be missundertood on internet forums takes time. The first time I started posting on forums I got mercilessly ass-raped, even thoughI meant no harm. It's easy for others to totally missunderstand the intended meaning, you as a lawyer should be familiar with that. gotta run now..(reply to this comment)

From Joe H Thursday, January 08, 2004, 12:44 (Agree/Disagree?) You're right though. Until you recently expanded your repetoire of topics I thought all you were into was drugs, and that Nancy was a bitter feminazi. I guess we're all expanding and developing our cyber-personas in synch, if not in parallel, with our own personalities.(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Thursday, January 08, 2004, 09:49 (Agree/Disagree?) And another thing, I do not consider myself "Christian". That is another one of your stereotypical terms which you ignorantly apply to me knowing little or nothing about me. In fact, these days I've been leaning towards Judaism. Are you going to start slinging anti-Semitic crap at me now?(reply to this comment)

From Sir Rantalot Thursday, January 08, 2004, 12:41 (Agree/Disagree?) You paranoid Politically correct bitch. Whatever makes you think I have something against jews? (reply to this comment)

From Nancy Thursday, January 08, 2004, 13:30 (Agree/Disagree?) With original creative and insightful names like "bitch", anti-Semitism didn't seem like a far stretch.(reply to this comment)

From Sonderval Thursday, January 08, 2004, 10:15 (Agree/Disagree?) Hrm, now Judaism is interesting, I highly recommend a thorough studying of the Kaballah (as far as I can tell spelling of that word is entirely a matter of personal preference) if you're going to pursue it though, and studying it is very much like trying to nail jelly to a wall if you don't have a teacher, and most of the people who claim to know it are talking cobblers. Meh, tricky religion to really get to grips with, an interesting one tho. (reply to this comment)

From sarafina Friday, January 09, 2004, 16:07 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm sorry I don't know much about Kabbalah although I learned enough to know that it wasn't for me but it seems it's turning in to quite a trend amongst Celebrities. Perris Hilton just signed up at the kabbalah center and so did Britney Spears both sporting some red string bracelet which is supposed to "fall off when negativity is purged from their system". Then I turned on the news today and this guy just came out with a new book called Kabbalah or( K blah blah as I like to put it)going on about their goal is to win 6 million over or something. I think it's all turning into a big money making scam and now people are just doing it cause its trendy..but then I say also if it helps them be a better person then go for it. there really are a lot of "followers" out there seems people just feel they "need" to follow something or they feel "lost" so to speak or they need to be into some sort of deep spiritual depth and in touch with themselves. Honestly I haven't really seen it do much for anyone and personally I just can't be bothered with all that. Doesn't mean I don't enjoy reading about it and looking in to all options although right now I think I'd best describe myself as a existentialist just living in the moment and enjoying my exisitance. Life seems to be to short to induldge in self therapy and or enlightenment.(reply to this comment)

From exister Friday, January 09, 2004, 16:19 (Agree/Disagree?) Ah, but your realization that these thing are all bunk is an enlightenment itself. The Ka blah blah blah is the next scientology. A religion/fad can go far on fat celebrity pockets.(reply to this comment)

From Sir Rantalot Thursday, January 08, 2004, 12:06 (Agree/Disagree?) Sonderval, funny, it seems we have a lot in common. I'm also studying the Kaballah, with a more Golden Dawn/hermetic look at things, even though I'm still at Malkuth now. I think it's a beautiful system of balance and harmony. The thing about the Kaballah is you can't just "study" it in the traditional sense, guided meditation on one sephiroth will lead you to the next, etc. And you can insert the kaballah into any god pantheon, be it Egyptian, Celtic, Judaic, etc. It's an amazing form of pyschology and self-therapy. I currently study from two books, "the Mystical Caballa" by Dion Fortune and "the complete golden dawn system" by Israel Regardie.(reply to this comment)

From Sonderval Thursday, January 08, 2004, 13:30 (Agree/Disagree?) The system has a huge amount to recommend it, not least the simple ordered perfection of the system which can yet be formed into the most elegant and complex forms and patterns imaginable, but before you get too deeply involved with it I would very strongly recommend you read a certain book, it's actually a work of fiction, it's by Umberto Eco and it's called Foucalt's Pendulum, not to warn you that weirdo's are going to snatch you away in the night but because of the philosophy offered by the main character's girlfriend. I can't explain it adequately here so I won't try, just read the book, it's also one of the most brilliantly written (if complicated) books I've ever read, you will enjoy it. Once you've got through that I have several other books on the Kaballah I can recommend to you, all packed at the moment as I'm moving house, happy reading. ;)(reply to this comment)

From exister Thursday, January 08, 2004, 17:43 (Agree/Disagree?) Do you wankers study the Kaballah with Madonna and Guy Richie? Nothing like a new washed up celebrity cult to replace the one from your childhood, eh?(reply to this comment)

From Sonderval Friday, January 09, 2004, 03:35 (Agree/Disagree?) For a start I don't study it, haven't done so for years, when I studied it I found it fascinating for it's style and construct, I've also studied Hinduism, Bhuddism, Christianity of many denominations, Atheism, and several of the more ancient roots of all of the above. Now ask me about my beliefs, I believe in none of the above religions, including atheism, the fact that you cannot differentiate between studying something and believing it doesn't really comment on your ability to question what you read very well, there are many of us who can read something simply out of curiousity without believing it out of hand. Would have thought it was fairly normal to have a healthy interest in religion and it's effects on people/culture considering our background, if you have no interest in one of the biggest defining factors of your upbringing then fair play to you, just try and develop some reading skills before commenting on other's posts however, muppet. Laters PS, please let us know what you believe, I'm sure I can find some celebrity tosser who believes the same thing that you may be copying, and fyi atheism is also a belief, believing in the absence of something when it has not been disproved requires faith in the unprovable.(reply to this comment)

From Anthony Friday, January 09, 2004, 15:06 (Agree/Disagree?) OMG, and all this time I claimed not be to a religious fellow, and now Sonderval informs us that atheism is a religion. Where's my gun? If I can't escape religion, I can still escape this life. (reply to this comment)

From Sir Rantalot Friday, January 09, 2004, 03:22 (Agree/Disagree?) Nothing more obvious than the total ignorance on this subject displayed by you exister. The Kaballah has been a part of the hermetic tradition for over a thousand years, I suggest you do a google search or look up an encyclopedia entry on it. It has nothing to do with following a charismatic leader.(reply to this comment)

From exister Friday, January 09, 2004, 10:48 (Agree/Disagree?) Well aren't we a couple of touchy, well read intellectuals. Celebrity bashing is one of my favorite pastimes and anything attached to them is fair game. What do I believe? I was enjoying a bottle of red with Albatross the other night and I believe we came to the conclusion that we reject the idea of belief altogether. Correct me if I'm wrong alby. So there it is. I am outraged that you suppose I should believe in anything at all. Nada, zilch, nothing. All I care to know about belief is that it is some sort of psychological gymnastics that less intelligent life forms engage in. It's kind of like the rolling of dung balls that those Egyptian beatles seem to enjoy. Fine for them, but you won't catch me doing it.(reply to this comment)

From Albatross Saturday, January 10, 2004, 17:29 (Agree/Disagree?) You are correct Exister. And a very good red it was! (reply to this comment)

From Sir Rantalot Friday, January 09, 2004, 16:58 (Agree/Disagree?) I also am a nihilist at heart, I do not classify Kaballah or hermetism as a belief though. You take a sephiroth, read up on what it represents, whether in a psychological sense or whatever context you decide to insert it into, and after a week of so of practice, watch your mind make connections, it's hard to explain, that's why it's called the western mystery tradition, there are things that go beyond rational explanation and have nothing to do with religion and that despicable word, faith. If anything, look at it as an exercise for your mind, notice how difficult it is to not think for a given amount of time, or to concentrate solely on one thing. It's really a shame that anything from parapsychology to kaballah, not explainable with our present language and level of technological advancement, gets tainted with religion and/or new age guru hocus pocus. It has nothing to do with "miracles" or "god", that's just a primitive term us superstitious mammals give to things which we still cannot comprehend. Either you are a boring rationalist, who believes that the human mind will go no further that it is now, or you are a pathetic religious person with faith(ugg!) and an irrational belief system! Well, i personally am neither, reason is a good slave but an insipid master, and we all know the pitfalls of religion, of ANY flavour.(reply to this comment)

From Sonderval Friday, January 09, 2004, 11:03 (Agree/Disagree?) "Well aren't we a couple of touchy, well read intellectuals. Celebrity bashing is one of my favorite pastimes and anything attached to them is fair game." Well the only connection between my studying the kaballah as an academic curiosity a few years ago and madonna announcing to the press that it's her latest fad is that we've both done stated that we've done the same thing, by that logic you'll be attacking me for taking a crap next because some celebrity somewhere is known to have done so. And as for touchy, please excuse my over-reaction to something that was patently not an attack, must be a language thing, see where I come from calling someone a wanker is fighting talk, which is why I thought that you were a fuckwit with a chip on his shoulder, quite obviously a mistake and I do beg your pardon. Incidentally, the absence of belief one way or the other in anything unprovable is known as being agnostic, one quick google search and I discovered that the celebrity you are blatantly following like a lost sheep is Uma Thurman, who claims to be an agnostic also, congratulations on apparently (by your logic) being a member of this celebrity cult. I also consider myself to be agnostic, but as I don't automatically assume that whatever someone believes is ripped off from some bleached blonde celebrity I think I'll keep the credit for my beliefs myself. Feel free to apologise for being such a muppet at any time. (reply to this comment)

From exister Friday, January 09, 2004, 12:07 (Agree/Disagree?) There is a clear distinction (to me anyways) between not believing and believing in nothing. It is analogous to the distinction between the empty set and the set that contains the single null object. If these concepts aren't clear to you then get hip to some set theory. By this reasoning I am not an agnostic, though I wouldn't mind shagging Uma rotten. Also, using Google as your primary authoritative source is just sad. Do you read any books?(reply to this comment)

From Sonderval Friday, January 09, 2004, 14:07 (Agree/Disagree?) "What do I believe? I was enjoying a bottle of red with Albatross the other night and I believe we came to the conclusion that we reject the idea of belief altogether." I think you're confused about what an agnostic is, an agnostic is one who has an empty set, or in other words has rejected belief altogether, believing something does not exist (eg the set that has a null object) is called Atheism and requires faith because you cannot know this by scientific method, it is impossible to disprove anything to which proofs are impossible. An agnostic is one who has dispensed with belief, it's literal translation is "one who does not know", so by your statement above this is what you are. And as for reading books, yes I read loads, but I'm afraid I have never read any books on celebrities or what they believe, if you think this is a significant gap in my education please feel free to recommend a couple as it seems to be your specialist subject (as obviously you got the information about Madonna's beliefs from a book . . .). In the meantime, if I want to know some useless piece of trivia such as what some bleached blonde celebrity believes, I think I'll just use google.(reply to this comment)

From exister Friday, January 09, 2004, 11:22 (Agree/Disagree?) Wow, I get 6 angry paragraphs with so little effort. What could I get if I try harder? If you are going to carry on about your adoration of the Kaballah then you should be prepared to defend it. A rude intro helps us cut to the meat more quickly. I won't apologize for using a jibe to accelerate the discussions on this site. If you are the sensitive type then maybe you should just sod off (yet another priece of Brit slang I am shamelessly co-opting). In any case I picked up "wanker" from Trainspotting. Not sure where it fits on the scale of offensiveness, but since you are on the other side of the Atlantic there is little chance my use of it will lead to fisticuffs. Why don't you lighten up, call me Yank, and get on with your job of swapping Pounds for Euros.(reply to this comment)

From Sonderval Friday, January 09, 2004, 11:38 (Agree/Disagree?) "Wow, I get 6 angry paragraphs with so little effort. What could I get if I try harder?" As a matter of fact I quite enjoy flaming people stupid enough to jibe me with a poorly thought out insult so by all means do carry on and I'll carry on verbally beating the crap out of you. :D You seem to get your kicks out of randomly insulting people, I enjoy grinding people who randomly insult me to mincemeat, looks like we're both in for a lot of fun. ;) And I am prepared to defend my academic interest in the Kaballah, come up with a better attack on it than that some celebrity somewhere has also expressed an interest in it and I'll happily defend it. :p(reply to this comment)

From exister Friday, January 09, 2004, 11:45 (Agree/Disagree?) Get a haircut, hippy!(reply to this comment)

From Sonderval Friday, January 09, 2004, 12:00 (Agree/Disagree?) Get a facelift, bugly!(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Friday, January 09, 2004, 12:53 (Agree/Disagree?) Got to interject here, too. Andy was my first childhood sweetheart. I liked him back in the day when we didn't know what kissing or hold hands were. I'd have to say since then, he has grown into a fine specimen of the male gender. Don't be saying nothing about him cause I'll have to hurt you! ;) Besides, you have a lovely wife. Go take your frustration out with her in a more constructive way. ;)(reply to this comment)

From exister Friday, January 09, 2004, 15:48 (Agree/Disagree?) exister blushes shyly for Nancy...(reply to this comment)

From Sonderval Friday, January 09, 2004, 14:22 (Agree/Disagree?) pfft, you like bugly.(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Friday, January 09, 2004, 12:55 (Agree/Disagree?) *holding(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Friday, January 09, 2004, 11:31 (Agree/Disagree?) So nice to have you back, Andy. I was getting a bit weary in this particular thread. Feel free to take over and deflect all the shrapnel while I take a rest for a bit.(reply to this comment)

From exister Friday, January 09, 2004, 11:42 (Agree/Disagree?) Sure thing Nancy! Incidentally, what's the idea with these "British gentlemen" spewing sexually explicit comments about Nancy? On most scales this type of behavior weighs in as far more offensive than "wanker." Did you boys pick up some old world misogyny while reading the Kaballah?(reply to this comment)

From Sonderval Friday, January 09, 2004, 11:54 (Agree/Disagree?) Bah, it wasn't just about Nancy, it was about Nancy and Rantalot, and they've already confessed to it so it's far too late to defend them, and isn't misogyny about hating your mother and by association all women? I hardly see how the fact that I happen to thoroughly enjoy having wild kinky sex with my wife while wearing a ginger wig and clad only in the St Andrew's cross flag (ahh, bonny nation that ye represent *wipes a tear*) and occasionally involving a lifesize latex doll of our lord and saviour jesus christ leads you to believe that I'm a misogynist. :p I think that you're quite obviously painfully repressed and not getting enough and the thought of normal healthy sex like that detailed above is driving you to distraction, I suggest you go away and have a little rest before continuing this discussion, clear your mind a bit. Incidentally, moving house over the weekend so won't be around online much, and this thread is getting quite tiresome anyways when the only thing worth debating on it is the jaded sexual antics of Nancy and Rantalot. ;)(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Friday, January 09, 2004, 12:49 (Agree/Disagree?) Uh, okay, must interject here! That Rantalot "confession" was a joke and a swipe at him. What's more, I must stand up here for my own man in his absence. No 21 year old Brit, with the grand total of sexual experience comprised of casual sex here and there with a run of the mill gal of equal or lesser age and a bit of knowledge of internet porn and various other uncreative sexual ideas and terms, would ever make the cut for consideration for my bed. I require a lot more originality, experience, charisma, swagger and soul-felt sexual spark in a man that can be felt in a simple mid-day quickie and far outweigh all the smack talk the truly suppressed may toss around here. A man who has it, knows it, and doesn't have to talk about it. Further, he doesn't need any dolls or toys or props or third-parties to satisfy his lady, in ways she never imagined. Yeah, I must also add that there is a lot to be said of the American male, especially mine. God Bless the United States Navy! "That's all I've got to say about the war in Vietnam." And that's my story, and I'm sticking to it. (reply to this comment)

From Wolf Friday, January 09, 2004, 15:25 (Agree/Disagree?) Yeah, yeah. Blah, blah. The man of your dreams is probably camped out in a tent near Tirkit thinking “Thank God I’m several thousand miles away from that female canine”. (reply to this comment)

From Nancy Friday, January 09, 2004, 16:02 (Agree/Disagree?) Stupid Wolf raising his insipid head, not even to enter into the debate any longer, but just to hurl his ignorant, unoriginal attempts at insult. I would normally expect more for you, but I see evolution is finally taking hold.(reply to this comment)

From Wolf Saturday, January 10, 2004, 03:43 (Agree/Disagree?) “Stupid, insipid” – very original.(reply to this comment)

From Sonderval Friday, January 09, 2004, 14:21 (Agree/Disagree?) Heh, not gonna get into a debate about American men because as a straight male I'll never be able to do any kind of comparison, all I'll say is it's likely that good sex is more about the individual than the nationality. ;) As for the whole joke about you and Rantalot, I'm fully aware it was a joke, I was simply trying to inject some humour into a debate between you and Rantalot that had descended into petty name calling and hair-pulling, not really interested in who started it but it was getting boring, so I decided to try and get you to confess that you were sleeping together, trust me, it makes sense if you're me. :p To get my point across more bluntly I'll simply say that there is absolutely nothing to be gained from insulting someone in seriousness on a bulletin board when you're debating on a relatively serious topic, it adds nothing to the debate and simply makes your own argument look weaker because you need to stoop to namecalling, and makes you look painfully immature. This was my meaning in refering to 'Ad Hominim', this translates to 'against the person' and it refers to the debating technique of attacking your opponent instead of attacking their argument and traditionally implies that the reason you do this is because you are not capable of answering their point properly. This is not aimed at either of you as both of you in other posts have come across as mature people who can hold an intelligent debate and state your points well, but enough with all the mudslinging already. :p(reply to this comment)

From Banshee Friday, January 09, 2004, 15:39 (Agree/Disagree?) No, no...it's not just you the joke made sense to. I was thoroughly enjoying the banter. I like the way you debate and bring across a point, and I think your sense of humor is great! Thanks for the laughs! :D(reply to this comment)

From Joe H Friday, January 09, 2004, 15:34 (Agree/Disagree?) As much as I think that debate classes should be moved to the elementary school level so that "ad hominem" not only becomes a household word, but that people also stop engaging in them, I think the ad hominems seen in this particular thread have been tons of fun! I did, however, take exception to the suggestion that Rantalot is sexually inexperienced and exister is sexually frustrated, not because I suspect either of these assertions to be completely implausible, mind you. I simply find these two attacks to be as insipid as they are hackneyed. Come up with some better material eh gents?(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Friday, January 09, 2004, 15:11 (Agree/Disagree?) What's this?! You two go on and on about kinky sex this and porn that, and when I finally respond, you retreat to "painfully immature" and "nothing to be gained", etc. Come on! If you lay the field, don't retreat when people show up to answer.(reply to this comment)

From Sonderval Wednesday, January 14, 2004, 02:54 (Agree/Disagree?) oops, sorry, was moving house when you posted this and missed it, when I posted this my intention was to highlight the fact that you two had stopped debating and started mudslinging, rather like lovers do in fact. From your reply I thought you'd actually taken it seriously or something, didn't see why else you'd need to clarify that you weren't in fact sleeping with him ;). So I decided to be more obvious about what I was trying to say, there's such a thing as being too subtle and I decided that I had been, so I stated my original intention in starting the joke about you and Rantalot, eg to cool down the hostilities by injecting a little humour, and also possible to get across the point that slinging mud at your opponent doesn't really counter their point, it just makes you look like a mudslinger (you being used in the general sense, not aimed at you in particular Nancy). Wasn't a retreat, it was a clarification as I thought my underlying point was a bit deeply buried and I wanted to get it across. Thankfully though the flames have died down a little on this thread now, still a lot of mudslinging going on across the boards though, shame. :-/(reply to this comment)

From Sonderval Thursday, January 08, 2004, 13:33 (Agree/Disagree?) PS, admit it, in real life you're having freaky sex with Nancy aren't you????(reply to this comment)

From Sir Rantalot Thursday, January 08, 2004, 15:05 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes, we have a room full of life-size protraits of dead presidents, she likes to get it from behind with me naked but draped in an american flag cloak, slapping her naughty ass while reciting the american constitution. Oh, and the TV is always on during these sessions, CNN fo life, YEEHAAA...horsieee!! Sometimes we'll make a 3some with my dad, a sort of father-son-fiance bonding session, he likes to get fucked by her wearing a strap on and calling him "you dirty Osama"!(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Thursday, January 08, 2004, 15:39 (Agree/Disagree?) Well, at least, that's what we do when Sir Rantalot can get it up.(reply to this comment)

From Sonderval Friday, January 09, 2004, 04:15 (Agree/Disagree?) I KNEW IT!!!!!!! There was just too much agro and namecalling for it to be anything else. :D PS, it's just weird that you guys get up to the EXACT same stuff as me and the wife, except I'm not in touch with my dad so I've created an interactive lifesize latex action jesus with realistic uplifting sermons to take his place, adds a new dimension I can tell you, anyways, enjoy. :D(reply to this comment)

From Sonderval Thursday, January 08, 2004, 09:47 (Agree/Disagree?) Yup, you two are definitely having wild kinky sex, clear as daylight, confess.(reply to this comment)

From Sonderval Thursday, January 08, 2004, 08:21 (Agree/Disagree?) Come on you two, you're not fooling anyone here, you're boning each other aren't you, we know you are, you know you are, you might as well just come clean. OMG, YOU'RE BUSTED!! (PS, probably pretty kinky sex as well if the above is anything to judge by)(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Thursday, January 08, 2004, 10:17 (Agree/Disagree?) Not so much. The only man that shares my bed and lights my fire is sleeping in a tent in Baghdad. I go for the more experienced man. By the way, has anyone ever told you that you look like a slimmer and prettier version of the actress who played Natalie on the television show The Facts of Life?(reply to this comment)

From Banshee Thursday, January 08, 2004, 10:29 (Agree/Disagree?) Nancy, maybe I'm missing who you were talking to in this post, but are you saying that Sonderval looks like a slimmer and prettier version of an actress? Sonderval, maybe you should start posting under "Sonderval:male" or something. Seems people keep thinking you're a female. Maybe you're just really in touch with your feminine side... ;)(reply to this comment)

From Sonderval Thursday, January 08, 2004, 11:04 (Agree/Disagree?) Of course that's what she's saying, and I don't know who Natalie is or ever watched that show but thanks hun, I know I'm slimmer and prettier than most people *fixes his makeup* but thanks for noticing hun *bats his eyelashes*. And yes Banshee, I'm regularly in touch with my feminine side but she's at home with Seamus at the moment so it'll have to wait till I get back from work. Laters PS I still think you two are an item, oh yes, definitely definitely, offering a reward for photographic evidence of the two of em meeting clandestinely . . . . . PPS, on a more serious note, as a trained debater I'm sure you're familiar with the term 'Ad Hominim', I'd just like to draw you're attention to the tirade that you two have been unleashing on each other and suggest that a more rational form of debate might be an improvement, it was funny at first but it's getting boring.(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Thursday, January 08, 2004, 11:33 (Agree/Disagree?) Dude, my bad!!! I didn't actually look you up in the directory. I just saw a picture of you and your wife and baby under new photos. I thought you were your wife, not because of anything you wrote or anything like that. I guess maybe I might have thought you seemed a bit insightful and assumed you were female. I guess what I meant was your wife looks like a prettier, slimmer version of an American actress. The actress later put on some weight in her career, but was always pretty in the face. Your wife looks like a young version of her. I meant it as a compliment, just didn't take the time to look up on the directory that, in fact, you are the man in the picture. I should have looked closer. "Em" must be your wife and "Seamus" the baby. I thought upon just a glance, that the male was "Seamus" and you were the female. I really did mean it as a compliment. Hell! No more attempts at compliment! (reply to this comment)

From Sonderval Friday, January 09, 2004, 05:34 (Agree/Disagree?) Hrm, I'd pass that compliment on to my wife except that she'd probably take it the wrong way, she doesn't like that picture much as she'd recently had Seamus and hadn't lost the weight from that yet. ;) And no offence taken at all btw, hard to know these things from a BB, I found it rather funny, thus the jokes above. ;) And isn't Seamus just the cutest little boy ever, he just keeps getting cuter as well, gonna be heartbreaker when he grows up. :D(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Friday, January 09, 2004, 09:37 (Agree/Disagree?) I'd say that is a good idea. She is a very beautiful woman, but I remember how self-conscious I was after I had my boy. Better not even mention weight for at least a year. :) Yes, that is a prince among babies! Cute as mine! ;) Really, a fine looking boy.(reply to this comment)

From Ian Wednesday, January 07, 2004, 02:05 (Agree/Disagree?) Hate to jump into your conversation, I haven't been seen around these parts much, but I coudn't help but slow down and take one of those blurry eyed, jaw dropped moments. I truly can't stand the way you write! Oddly, I do agree with you sometimes, but your style and tone is absolutely nauscious. Nothing personal, I could probably afford to shed a few pounds any how. Having blurted that out, let me get to the point. How is it possible for you to study law and not see the way that religion of any kind has destroyed humanity? No wonder I didn't like you, my subconscious was raising the "run for your life, it's another freak" cue card. It's so much like the judicial system; one for the logic pile, one for the logic pile, one for the logic pile, one.....oh wait I'm going to let my personal feelings override science and logic and fuck up somebody's life. I've been reading about some of major tech companies new recruiting programs were they try to use analytical math to theorize the potential for candidate new hires to become major problem cases or have a "soft attitude towards drugs" or worse even "free thoughts and a non-corporate attitude", why can't we find a way to keep the religious people out of the medical and legal fields? Maybe genetic research is in order? Certainly the government would be willing to sponsor some organization that would undertake this project. I for one would be willing to sacrifice all and join the public service, perhaps as treasurer, or even chairman (I meant Chair-person, of course). Well, I've had a weird week and just yesterday I promised myself to be the most loving and memorable person that I could, so I guess my all just didn't cut it. Let religious people immediatly throw out all religious laws (like marraige), legalize drugs, disregard ridiculous age restrictions (12, 18, 21) , replace prison sentences with punishments that actually work, major firms should do pro-bono work for fags in the military, and maybe we will let the religious people live. And while I'm dreaming; I think that ridiculously weak non aggressive humans that can't do anything better than get lost, get ambushed, get scared, and then get CAUGHT, should be laughed out of the military. Not because they are female, just because they're weak. I realize this is off the subject, excuse me for rambling out of control but I don't have my bee-yotch (I mean Paralegal Secretary) here to hand me my notes. Anyway, there is no such thing as "freedom from lack of beliefs" it's the most romantic, bullshit, lame, ridicuous bunch of crap I have ever heard. What non-religious person ever made a law that dictated what you can or can't do in privacy or on your own property (I'm including Marxism and Fascism as a form of religion). Where are the followers of Bertrand Russell found? Certainly not sitting around creating laws that imprison people who don't teach anti-war or free sex. Anyway, I'm to burnt on this subject.Have a good afterlife.(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Wednesday, January 07, 2004, 09:41 (Agree/Disagree?) I can't begin to reply to this rambling because it makes no sense. Further, you use such offensive language that it degrades your whole attempt at argument. Try leaving out the bigoted and sexist smack, then it might even appear to be an argument worth a reply. Generalized, over-simplified, under-informed smack is all I read here. When did we transfer from religion to the military? Would it help you to know that I'm getting my masters degree in IR with a concentration in militant Islamic terrorism? Would it help you to know I guest lecture an ROTC class? Would it help you to know I'm currently dating a Navy pilot and saw an AF fighter pilot for two years before him and also dated a Marine Captain for five months? I do all kinds of military charity work to help the spouses and children left behind. I'm in the middle of a project right now. It might surprise you to know I am far from a pacifist. I support our military with my time and money, not just taxes either, but my salary, as well. I think extremist religious fanatics that murder in the name of any god deserve the justice of the United States military and any coalition forces who march with them. I think we have a strong military to thank for having less war in the world. It is a deterrent to more violence by its presence alone. I do not sleep at night ignorant of the protection afforded me and my son by our armed forces. The man I will probably marry is in Baghdad right now. I support him 100%. All he is doing is taxiing around special ops at night to root out militant extremists responsible for murder of their own people. So, don't put me in your preconceived concocted box, Ian. I am not your stereotypical lawyer who votes straight ticket democrat. No, I am very conservative when it comes to foreign policy and tax issues. I defy your simplistic stereotypes. My career goal is to work for the DOD in an analyst position so I can do my part to make my career count in making our country a bit safer from religious fanatics which wage war against us in the name of religion. But, I do not support the policies of the current administration. No, I do not fit into anyone's sexist little box. And, yes, we do have freedom from other's beliefs. It's called freedom of religion and separation of church and state. That includes the freedom from the religion of others being forced upon us, even if they choose to believe nothing. An example is Christmas is a national holiday despite attempts by agnostics and atheists to have that changed. It is also a commercial holiday, and we can enjoy it and celebrate it in the way we see fit, as long as we do not infringe on the rights of others. It's all a balancing test. That is how our Supreme Court decides Constitutional issues. There are a number of balancing tests that they employ to decide issues when the rights of two parties conflict, so that we can all enjoy our freedoms. All these matters, law, religion and the military require balance. They do not fall into your black and white stereotypical terms. Of course, you probably don't fully understand or appreciate that. But, that is okay. You work on the operative level, not the policy level. You probably do your job pretty well. You seem very gun-ho, lets kill everyone who doesn't agree with us. But, despite a place for that in our military which is actually pretty valued, they give people like you silver stars when you put that energy and fearlessness into play in war, we are not a military state. We are a country of checks and balances. Freedom requires it.(reply to this comment)

From Ian Thursday, January 08, 2004, 00:51 (Agree/Disagree?) I really didn't have a point, I was somewhat absorbed in practising my personal form of freedom at the time and I really just wanted to see you type a long paragraph about how cool you are. Gosh, Really, Wow. A real Captain in the USMC, did he wear his blues on "dress up night"? I fucked a Major's wife! So.....maybe we should have coffee sometime, we're almost equals. I think I understand you better, you're alot like most chicks that spend to much time around military bases.(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Thursday, January 08, 2004, 11:23 (Agree/Disagree?) You misunderstood me. I referred to him as a Marine captain because I'm not sure what type of job he did, something in an office. I was not highlighting his rank, especially since he is the lowest ranking officer I've dated. And I've been to military bases only a couple of times, upon invite to a banquet for fundraising I participated in or for a JAG meeting. The men I've dated I met when they approached me here in my hometown or through a friend. My relationship to the military is not one of interest in the men, but one of interest in the military itself. I plan to work directly for the DOD, not live vicariously through some random fighter jock. (reply to this comment)

From Alf Wednesday, January 07, 2004, 12:35 (Agree/Disagree?) LOL 'Guest lecture at an ROTC class'!! Stop Nancy you're making me dizzy..(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Wednesday, January 07, 2004, 12:46 (Agree/Disagree?) Shut up, Alf. Some of us actually work for a living. We can't all live in a welfare state.(reply to this comment)

From Alf Wednesday, January 07, 2004, 13:45 (Agree/Disagree?) Nancy I take particular offense to that remark. I request that you withdraw it and apologise before I am forced to cruelly ridicule you. (reply to this comment)

From Nancy Wednesday, January 07, 2004, 14:03 (Agree/Disagree?) I don't know, Alf. You're one to ask for a take back. You usually jump around from article to article dropping your ill-time and thoughtless comments regardless of subject matter. Besides, you don't scare me! I would be much inclined to take back pretty much anything that offended you or anyone else here if I knew it sincerely offended. I can't be so sure about you. Glasshouses, Alf! Glasshouses! But, just in case your feelings are hurt, let everyone know that I do not think Alf lives in a welfare state. In fact, I think GB is pulling out of its economic spiral which almost pulled it off the map of world players. Their food, especially their meat, still sucks! It all tastes like off pork, whether its beef, veal or chicken. ;)(reply to this comment)

From Alf Wednesday, January 07, 2004, 14:58 (Agree/Disagree?) I disagree Nancy the property bubble won't last, in fact I think the UK is close to recession. Ha!(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Wednesday, January 07, 2004, 16:11 (Agree/Disagree?) Yeah, it's like that all over. But, it was worse awhile back. The UK nearly lost its "status", which I mean not as a real status but just a consideration by political science, economic and International Relations scholars, as a core nation, as opposed to a periphery nation, due to the number of its citizens on the dole. Is that how it's spelled? Unemployment was horrific in the UK for a world power.(reply to this comment)

From Sonderval Wednesday, January 07, 2004, 03:39 (Agree/Disagree?) heh, how on earth can you class marxism and fascism as forms of religion? They're economic systems, they don't touch on religious belief in any way, you're on shaky ground there mate. As for the rest of the rant, bit illogical and rambling for me to argue with, just thought I'd pick out that point and completely ignore the rest of your post, ho hum, sorry bout that. And as far as making laws that dictate what you can or can't do on your own private property, pause and think about that, do you think it should be legal to kill your kids, no, obviously, how about beat them to a pulp, hrm, still no, how about beat them with a belt, umm, probably still not, but many would argue with you there, now we're in the grounds of individual morality, how about just smack them, not talking about with a belt or any other weapon, just a smack, well surely that should be down to the parents, but no, many non religious people seek to have that banned as well. Few other areas, you're not supposed to take drugs on your own property, never struck me as overtly religious that one, not supposed to sexually molest your hamster on your own property (it can be done and no I won't send instructions), again, didn't strike me as particularly religious, rape, abuse, manufacturing explosives, illegally distilling alcohol, need I go on? In short, I'm not greatly religious myself, but I'm struggling to find much of worth in your post in this debate, please rethink your entire argument and come back and try again. Laters(reply to this comment)

From Albatross Tuesday, January 06, 2004, 21:43 (Agree/Disagree?) Hi Nancy! :) Happy New Year! I understand your position. I think the point I was going for (and maybe poorly) is that I have difficulty with what seem so often to be the christian position that all discussions begin from the "understanding" that we are all sinners in need of salvation and a savior, and then work backwards from there. As if the need for redemption and salvation are the default position in any logical look at the topic of religion. But you are right, religion and in this case, christianity, can be esoteric and intangible. I don't begrudge anyone the right to their beliefs, regardless of whether I think they are unsuportable collection of superstitions or not. What I take issuse with rather, is the tone, or better, the unselfconcious assumption that it is a given that all are seeking the "perfet path" or are in need of some type of spiritual redemption. I don't know if it nessesarily follows to suggest that after having been force fed religion, we should now respect the beliefs of others. If anything, I look askance at any religious or ecstatic fervors, especially since they seldom carry with them an element of selfcritisism. Is it parcing it out too much to say that while I respect the rights of others to have hold their beliefs, I don't see any harm in suggesting that I take exception to the idea that those beliefs are the standard by which other belief systems or lacks there of should be judged? I agree with your point about tolerance. I am decidedly not of the camp of secular fanatics that would sweep religion out of any public discussion. I consider that in some ways equal to religious fervor; a religion of anti-religion, if you will. I guess I just bridle when those of us who revere science and logic as answer for areas where religion has perhaps far too often held sway, find ourselves having to explain our lack of belief in an intangible and for the most part, faith based belief structure....and that goes for any belief structure, be it christianity, islam, or what have you. As for the fascinating game of Wei'qi....It is like a religion to some....heck, some people even make millions of dollars playing it. My point to the poster was that religion should be a personal thing, much like Wei'qi. I understand you disagree with that comparison. I suppose it would be disingenuous for me to pretend that as an individual (and not as it relates to the rights of others) I have much respect for the institutions and beliefs that support religion. And I am going to conceed this next point to you without argument, :) I was too hard on the original poster in response to what for those most part seemed to be just an exuberant proclamation of faith. For once I had some free time and a bee under my bonnet on this topic. Thus the resulting post. But now I've gone and done it. Not only have I disagreed with a trained debater, but one who I also very much respect. Have at me! :) My response may be limited as it's all work from here on out. Best of luck to you and your BTW. Daniel(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Wednesday, January 07, 2004, 10:08 (Agree/Disagree?) Sorry to disappoint, Daniel, but I cannot argue with your logic. I may be trained to argue in a court of law, but your natural talent far outweighs what I've been taught. Besides, I agree with you on so many levels. I despise Bible-thumpers. I admire academics who can make sense of the world in logical, tangible terms. Not to mention, my beliefs are still in flux. I know I mentioned it before, but I recently attended a lecture by Dr. Charles Kimball, a Harvard educated religion professor who recently wrote When Religion Becomes Evil. His well-informed understanding of religious extremists, both Christian and Islamic, persuaded me. War is often waged in the name of religion, but it is often just a front for an underlying struggle for resources. So many evils in this world have been committed in the name of some god and by some fanatic who claims to have absolute truth, some hypocritical, self-possessed extremist who thinks the whole world must conform to their beliefs or be damned. God save us all FROM them! I cringe when I hear Christians whining about "only the blood of Christ saves." What makes you so special that only you, of all the millions on the earth, have the only one truth? Did it ever occur to you that there is not one truth, and you in middle-white suburbia aren't the oracle for the 21st Century? So, hey, I'm with you. I just also have this place in my mind where I want to believe that the good in the world will be rewarded and evil will receive justice beyond the often failing attempts of humans. Something also tells me that humans, in all our strength and innovation and corruption and frailty, aren't completely running the entire universe. But, just as I resist the intolerance of absolute truth claims, I know that my own beliefs aren't anything more than my personal take. (reply to this comment)

From Joe H Wednesday, January 07, 2004, 12:11 (Agree/Disagree?) You say you "cringe when [you] hear Christians whining about 'only the blood of Christ saves'" In that case, why are you sticking up for Webel, who made the following comment: "I understand the difficulty that some of you may have in believing that Christ is the only path to salvation, BUT HE IS" [my emphasis]. This sounds like an "absolute truth claim" to me.(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Wednesday, January 07, 2004, 12:51 (Agree/Disagree?) Good question. I'm "sticking up for her" right to expound her personal beliefs, not necessarily her beliefs themselves. I don't agree with her on everything. I just agree with her right to believe what she wants. I don't want to attack her because I sense her beliefs are based on compassion and empathy, not necessarily her firm position that she has it all wrapped up. I agree that that particular statement does seem like that, though. (reply to this comment)

From Webel Wednesday, January 07, 2004, 17:29 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes Nancy, my beliefs are based on compassion and empathy. Going to hell and back on my knees is what brought me to my faith and what I believe. I do not discriminate others nor do I condemn them, nor would I disrespect anyone who chose to believe anything different, at the same time I have a right to express myself - being confident about what I believe in enables me to listen to what other people have to say without becoming abusive. Feeling strongly about something and does not mean I mistreat others, that goes contrary to everything I believe which is the freedom to choose. Intolerance seems to have gone the other way where no one has the right to have firm beliefs. By making strong and passionate statements I speak only for what is in my heart and what has been revealed to me in this life - forcing someone else to believe as I would be 1984 where the spirit of the man was broken and he professed his love for big brother whilst hating him with a passion. (reply to this comment)

From Joe H Wednesday, January 07, 2004, 17:41 (Agree/Disagree?) "Going to hell and back on my knees" Oh come now, surely giving head can't be that bad!(reply to this comment)

From Anoni Thursday, January 08, 2004, 15:28 (Agree/Disagree?) What a wonderful answer! how old ARE you?(reply to this comment)

From Webel Thursday, January 08, 2004, 15:05 (Agree/Disagree?) I will treat that comment with the contempt it deserves....(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Wednesday, January 07, 2004, 18:11 (Agree/Disagree?) Weren't you just the champion a bit ago of sticking to the issue rather than personal attacks?(reply to this comment)

From Joe H Wednesday, January 07, 2004, 18:27 (Agree/Disagree?) Oh come on, maybe my mind is deeper in the gutter than yours, but I thought that joke was too good to miss!(reply to this comment)

From Sonderval Tuesday, January 06, 2004, 18:14 (Agree/Disagree?) I respect your right to your beliefs, but please don't presume to instruct those of us who disagree with them, everyone here has had ample exposure to the bible and christianity, I'm sure everyone here is capable of coming to their own decision about whether christianity is the 'one true path'. I personally disagree with you on many levels, but I have found that arguing about religion is completely futile and ultimately damaging for everyone concerned, religion in my opinion is best left a private affair to be determined by each individual according to their own needs and feelings.(reply to this comment)

from Nancy Friday, January 02, 2004 - 14:38 (Agree/Disagree?) I also wanted to make a comment on Webel's article. I agree with you here, too. I still have my faith, too. It's not all "the blood of Jesus Christ will save," though. I believe in God. I know someone is up there and hears my prayers. My son and I have been very blessed and had my prayers answered when we were very close to the bottom. We're here and okay and made it. I give a lot of credit to God for his protection and love. But, I reject all that non-tolerant crap about how there is a chosen people and everyone else is going to hell. All three major religions, Islam, Christianity and Jewdism are monotheistic and worship the God of Abraham. They are very similar. I think God is not in anyone's pocket. No one has it all wrapped up. No one has the mind of God. Anyone who says they do and start acting as if they know the mind of God is scary and should be watched and treated. Those are the signs of danger in religion. We "see through a glass darkly." No one has all the answers. I think living a good life, loving those around us like our families and friends, doing the best we can, is all we can do. I don't think those with good hearts, especially those who have suffered so much, go unnoticed by God. I certainly don't think there are some magic words, in any language, that will allow you a secret pass. I also get very upset, angry and sad, when I see cults like the Family and terrorists, who I think are both very similar, committing acts and crimes in the name of God and claiming they are someone special or blessed. No, you are a criminal and your deeds do not go unnoticed. Some of these characters will receive the evil they have sown in this life. What goes around comes around. I think it's evil worse when they hypocritically claim they are the only chosen, and as a result, they destroy their victims faith. I think the number of those people here who believe nothing and reject everything which was forced on them as children, including any faith in God, are just another result of the crimes of the Family. Their lack of any faith is the responsibility and indictment of the Family's crimes. Those who do not believe are victims. The Family has their blood and faith, or lack thereof, on their hands. They will have to answer for them. It breaks my heart for the victims. I certainly don't try to change anyone's mind on religion. That is very, very, very personal to each person. Each has his own right to believe whatever they choose. I certainly do not think that anyone is damned for not believing. These are the victims. Their suffering alone must touch the heart of God. Their faith or lack thereof, which is the result of evil done to them, does not damn them. They are victims and held blameless. I truly believe it. I do say prayers for some people I know here. I don't tell them because I know they don't believe and I don't want to offend them. I don't pray for their faith, though. I pray that God will ease the memory of their pain. I pray that God will protect them from any further suffering. I pray that God will provide them with the beautiful life they deserve. Because I believe that when their lives are up, just like millions of others in the world, God will send angels to carry them to their rest and their suffering will finally be ended. God doesn't play by our rules. He isn't in someone's box. We don't have his mind. But, I do believe he is there and cares for us all, especially those who have suffered so much. (reply to this comment)

from Sir Rantalot Friday, January 02, 2004 - 07:28 (Agree/Disagree?) I think this is the difference between the Christian flavored "Slave morality" of Nietzsche vs the "Herren Morality" he hoped man would evolve into. The awake, grown-up individual doesn't need parental authority figures(god, church, state) setting rules and limits to prevent him from interfering with others liberties. He has an inner self-control where he auto regulates him and has an inner ethical intuition which guides him. He doesn't need the commandment "thou shalt not kill" because he knows that already, it's an understatment, a petty formality, he has transcended the need for restriction because he understands himself and he knows how to handle total freedom. Governments usually don't have religious preferences, but the Christian "slave morality" goes along well with the widespread policy of: "you don't know how to take care of yourself, you need us to make laws telling you how to life a sane, wholesome life & you need us to protect you from your fellow citizen". The true adult, recognizes his kindship with all humanity, he has destroyed his bloated, individualistic personal ego and does not see himself as one, but part of a whole, damaging another would hurt him just as much. He is proud, he loves himself, therefore is not given to negative sentiments of envy towards others, but being proud does not mean selfish, he has empathy towards others and can't help but love them as much as he loves himself. I have found this in various people I have met in the past years, and I believe reaching such a state is not something that can be taught, or even clearly explained, it's solely up to the individual to discover this within himself and to develop his own definition of Ubermensch & his own sense of ethics and empathy for others, it's not something that can be taught or a religious morality that can be imposed. Laws are awkward, think in 100 years, with the advancements of new technologies, how the ten commandments will not only be useless, but irrelevant. What is do be done then, write a whole new set of laws, ie thou shalt not ingage in cybernetic adultery, or thou shalt not clone thy neighbour against his will? (reply to this comment)

From Pete Sunday, January 04, 2004, 14:41 (Agree/Disagree?) "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy mind, and all thy strength; and thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." In what way is this slave ethics? It appears to me that these laws provide internal, not external, controls on behavior.(reply to this comment)

From Sir Rantalot Monday, January 05, 2004, 08:56 (Agree/Disagree?) "Love the LORD thy god" That implies love of a master, and the rest of the Bible tells you what this love you love wants you to do. vs. "Love thy higher self" does not imply loving a master You took perhaps the most libertarian verse in the Bible, but what about it's endless lists of do's and don'ts? As for loving your neighbour as yourself, there is nothing wrong with that little phrase in the Bible, but Christians through the ages took it upon themselves to follow the 10 commandements, decide what adultery is and what is or is not taboo as far as sexual practices are concerned, as well as a whole slew of dogma, litany, rituals, etc. I don't even believe that Jesus intended his thoughts to sound anything like the bible we have today, remember the Nicean council anyone? It was decided there, after his death to elevate him to a divinity & which gopels to put in the bible and which to destroy. It was then that Christianity became a slave religion, the same way present day celebrity worship is slave mentality. Who gives a fuck about the great and famous of today and of old, work on yourself and become great instead of adoring those that have made it already! Instead of adoring Jesus, which i highly doubt was of divine origin, why not try and study HOW he managed to discipline his mind & body till he could accomplish such feats and how he managed to start a new religion. This is the basis of mysticism, even Crowley wrote a book comparing the mystical experiences of Mohammed, Buddha & Jesus, looking for similarities. Why follow? Discipline your mind and body and you'll find yourself head and shoulders above the crowd, no one said it's an easy path, but it's a thousand times more rewarding to bailing out and following an easy, mircowave oven dinner, sheep religion. Even the current debate on pornography shows Christian slave morality. So what if you knew a guy who messed up his sex life with porn? So what is you knew someone who spiced up their sex life with it? Porn is not good or evil, if someone has a negative outcome from porn viewing, that their problem, as a responsible adult, no one else's. You fuck up, you pay the price, don't try and find someone to sue for your supidity, next time, you'll be smarter. A Christian viewpoint would be to make porn illegal, or ban it's sale to those under a certain age limit, or limit it's distribution to certain shops or areas of town(ie pretend it doesn't exist). Of course, make more laws, more restrictions, prevent people from growing up and learning responsibility for their actions. Like the family carefully screened out "bad" films, so we wouldn't get polluted. Most christian rock groups differ from non-christian ones only in that they do not swear or talk about teenage sex, but we all know, pretending the problem doesn't exist, does not make it dissapear. (reply to this comment)

From Pete Wednesday, January 07, 2004, 21:49 (Agree/Disagree?) Are you saying that if only a person learned to discipline his mind and body enough, he could do the things Jesus did, such as heal the sick, turn water into wine, walk on water and raise the dead, not to mention rise from the dead himself? And are you promoting the free sale of porn anytime, anywhere, to people of any age?(reply to this comment)

From Sir Rantalot Saturday, January 10, 2004, 08:50 (Agree/Disagree?) Most of the Bible is hearsay, I was not talking about the party tricks Jesus supposedly conjured to get attention. I'm talking about him hanging out in the desert for 40 days and then returning with such stamina and energy to get people to follow him. similar things happened with Mohammed and Buddha. One thing is certain these people were leaders, not followers, their charisma was so strong I'm pretty sure it prompted their followers to start all these fantastic miracle myths about them, because they could not understand where these people got the strength to start a whole new religion. As for porn, I'm just using an example to demonstrate a typical mindset of western, Christian, "slave-mentality", whether it be porn, drugs, weapons or plastic bags. We see ourself as small children in need of protection from ourselves, whether that protection be from some god or from our loving, concerned government. When a mishap happens with say drugs or firearms, the immediate reaction is a calling for more laws, restrictions and intervention from "above", when will we grow up and learn that accidents are a part of life? We try to control the chaotic element of the universe, nature is both chaotic and ordered, we try to predict nature, predict and prevent misshaps in a population of millions, which to me is paranoid, delusional behaviour. In 500million people, there will always be one or two Jeffrey Dahmers, and more than a few junkies, does that mean we should ban needles and kitchen knifes? Responsibility, not restriction, should be the key word.(reply to this comment)

From Albatross Monday, January 05, 2004, 11:00 (Agree/Disagree?) Brilliant! (reply to this comment)

from cheeks Thursday, December 25, 2003 - 13:12 (Agree/Disagree?) Ok. So I don't really believe demon possesion is very plausable. Yes, there were a few cases in the Bible but a whole group full? You also need to remember that for as many wacko's that there were, there were also good christian people there. And I do not believe a christian can be possessed. That being said, I do respect the fact that you were willing to write about being a christian and the faith that you have. Let us be open to the faiths and beliefs of others. If this web site is truly about moving on, we must respect everyones view points even if they differ from our own. (reply to this comment)

from AA Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 14:46 (Agree/Disagree?) To all the people who are mocking Webel's article, WHY? Webel is pointing out how evil and corrupt Berg and his doctrines are. Just because she uses a Christian viewpoint it seems u all wanna take the mick. Seems to me the Family has done it's job on u guys. Don't let Berg's false religion stop u from searching for true christianity and the peace and happiness I guarantee it will bring you, otherwise Berg will have messed u up permanently and not just in the past. (reply to this comment)

From Banshee Tuesday, December 23, 2003, 15:58 (Agree/Disagree?) I think it's very simplistic to put the many agnostics and atheists that come on this site into a box and claim that it's TF's fault or Berg's fault for their present point of view and beliefs (or lack thereof, as the case may be). I think it offends their intelligence and judgment, insinuating that they cannot think for themselves or make unbiased decisions. If there is one thing we who have left TF can do, it's to think freely and make unhindered decisions. That being said, I also think that it is unfair to the many Christians who frequent this site to mock their viewpoints or comments when they are overtly Christian or religious-tainted. We should all be able to feel free to comment on this site with our own personal belief system without fear of ridicule or mockery. That is one of the reasons we left TF. Please, before anyone starts attacking this sentiment, let me reiterate that I am only talking about the derogatory or mocking comments that attack the fact that the person is Christian or believes in God, not the comments that are simply expressing, even if very strongly, an opposing opinion or belief. (reply to this comment)

From Nancy Monday, January 05, 2004, 12:22 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree with you and think your comment is very sightful. But, I don't want anyone to think I presume that agnostists or atheists are any less intelligent than those that have some sort of faith. On the contrary, I feel like I have to defend my faith because it, by nature, seems to contradicts what is logical, reasonable and tangible. I do believe, though, that the Family is responsible for turning a lot of people away from any form of faith. Many people would have chosen not to believe completely on their own. Statistics show that. Not all agnostists were victims of an abusive cult. But, most will agree with me that the Family also did its part to turn a lot of people away, as well. For that I hold them responsible, along with a long list of indictments. Feeling compassion for those who have suffered does not mean I pity them or look down on them. It is not the same. Besides, I've heard from one agnostic that when tough times come, as they always do, that without faith, one has only themselves to depend on. That shows strength. Faith can be a comfort and a cushion. For those that don't believe, it is not there when they fall. They have only themselves to depend on. I have to respect the strength that takes. So, I guess I am agreeing with you and just clarifying my position. I still believe and pray. I also have my faith tested when really terrible things happen. I don't have all the answers, and fear people who think they do. But, at the very same time, I respect and feel and love and admire a lot of people who don't believe at all. In fact, the man in my life right now has no faith, was raised Jewish and abused by a so called "Christian" step-parent. I respect him and know he has a lot to offer and knows a lot more than I do on a lot of subjects. I also love him and say prayers for his protection while he is in Iraq. He knows I say prayers, yet still believes nothing and that is prefectly okay with us both. (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Monday, January 05, 2004, 15:07 (Agree/Disagree?) A friend of mine who was a professional soldier in the British army for over 20 years said that when actually in a battlefield even the most atheistic of soldiers will start praying - to whatever god. He doesn't consider himself Christian at all, but he said that when he was in action (which he was a number of times) it just seemed like the right thing to do.(reply to this comment)

From Anthony Wednesday, January 07, 2004, 13:15 (Agree/Disagree?) It's never the "right" thing to do. When I'm in the lion's den and about to be torn assunder, or if I lay in mortal pain for 100 years, I still will not pray to any god or "higher power." The strong do not need to invent fantasy for mental and physical sustenance.(reply to this comment)

From Webel Saturday, December 27, 2003, 19:27 (Agree/Disagree?) Thank you! Common sense! I'll drink to that! (Yes! I drink) and a Happy New Year to you all who don't resort to insult and ridicule just because someone else has a different point of view! Everyone has to find their way in life and I wrote about what mine is - do we have freedom of speech in movingon.org? or do we all have to behave like inmature idiots?! and if I want to take refuge in God then surely I have a right to just as some fool wants to take refuge in porn or valium.(reply to this comment)

From Anthony Wednesday, January 07, 2004, 13:29 (Agree/Disagree?) And the rest of us have a right not to hear about godfuck at every turn. Money is one of my stronger motivators, yet, I can't even look at American currency without seeing the deceptive phrase, to be sure, "In God We Trust." Enough already! I can and do accept the fact that people have insipid and injurious beliefs, but I don't have to respect them.(reply to this comment)

From neez Sunday, December 28, 2003, 17:20 (Agree/Disagree?) Freedom of speech actually includes insults & ridicule. Look it up. It's becoming painfully obvious to me that the local religious types have little to no sense of humour whatsoever.. I think that must be the trade off (show me one funny christian). The fact that you blindly assumed I was talking about myself is amusing to say the least.. I mean, do you actually think anyone would look for their 'refuge' in a porno??(reply to this comment)

From Wolf Sunday, January 04, 2004, 15:52 (Agree/Disagree?) I know at least one damn funny Christian -- Bush Junior. I don't know if he realizes what a crack up he is though.(reply to this comment)

From neez Sunday, January 04, 2004, 18:18 (Agree/Disagree?) I stand corrected. The man's a comedic genius.(reply to this comment)

From Mir Friday, January 02, 2004, 07:23 (Agree/Disagree?) I'll show you one, my sister Webel, she is the funniest person I know! Don't be so silly neez, you know you can't make a blanket statement that Christians have little or no sense of humour! And yes, there are some sad individuals out there who DO take refuge in porno. Don't get all upity now, I am not saying that you do darling! ;-)(reply to this comment)

From neez Friday, January 02, 2004, 20:32 (Agree/Disagree?) ROFL that's the best you could come up with!? Your sister..?! It's a bit of a worry that she's the funniest person you know. Do you think TV & live comedy nights are evil as well? I'll admit.. some of the things Webel has come up with have made me laugh.. Christians have little or no sense of humour!(reply to this comment)

From Mir Sunday, January 04, 2004, 15:57 (Agree/Disagree?) Whatever. I can't be arsed to argue anymore because you are just been daft now...(reply to this comment)

From neez Sunday, January 04, 2004, 18:18 (Agree/Disagree?) I'll miss what we had Mir..(reply to this comment)

From Mir Tuesday, January 06, 2004, 17:38 (Agree/Disagree?) LOL! :-)(reply to this comment)

From meezy agreezy mit neezy Friday, January 02, 2004, 22:46 (Agree/Disagree?) (reply to this comment)

From Anthony Tuesday, December 23, 2003, 15:11 (Agree/Disagree?) Obviously someone doesn't know anything about Anthony. I have no desire to shre my testimony, But I will say that one of the many reasons I left the cult was because of religious differences. Ask anyone who knew me during my first year out how religious I was, how I was desperately seeking "true Christianity" and other religious alternatives. Berg and the cult have nothing to do with my current enlightened state. It just too easy to say that Berg and cults soured our taste for religion; hey genius, since when was life that simplistic? (reply to this comment)

from neez Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 02:52 (Agree/Disagree?) "The spirits of immorality and sexual depravity run wild in TF. Berg was full of evil spirits and even had sex with them (remember the goddesses?) " So what you're basically saying here is that it is in fact possible to have sex with spirits. & I wonder if berg was just really drunk that night. & that the 'goddesses' were in fact 3 ugly old witches from.. let's say Eastwick. (reply to this comment)

From on the other hand Saturday, January 03, 2004, 10:55 (Agree/Disagree?) I’m pretty skeptical when it comes to demons good or bad. But I do believe that Berg must have suffered from serious mental illness given the hallucinations and voices he heard. I’m no shrink….but it had to border on schizophrenia. I find it hard to believe that alchohol was all it took. I've never hallucinated under the influence of alchohol, unless Berg was on something else...(reply to this comment)

From Mir Tuesday, December 23, 2003, 17:38 (Agree/Disagree?) Have you ever heard of incubus-sucubus? There are people out there who do believe that sex with spirits is possible... urg!(reply to this comment)

From neez Wednesday, December 24, 2003, 00:33 (Agree/Disagree?) Yeah your right Incubus do kinda suck..(reply to this comment)

from neez Tuesday, December 23, 2003 - 02:29 (Agree/Disagree?) Finally.. Someone actually figured out the truth the whole truth & nothing but.. Truly you are my hero oh Webel. I've been listening to those damn spirits of immorality again. & I'm feeling really guilty about popping those 2 valiums & smelling that joint the other night.. & I even heard the sounds of a porno coming from 1 of the rooms & considered turning my head to look at it breifly. So please Webel.. I need u to hook me up here. Is there maybe an extra credit scheme I can get on with the big guy.. Does you're new diety still accept sexual favours after class maybe? Or r u still deciding on that one. Perhaps you could describe in point form the main differences between the TF god(TM), & Webel god(TM). (reply to this comment)

From Mir Tuesday, December 23, 2003, 17:36 (Agree/Disagree?) Oh, grow up you silly sod!!(reply to this comment)

From neez Wednesday, December 24, 2003, 00:31 (Agree/Disagree?) I really don't mind hearing that from someone who thinks pornos(& possibly the internet) are evil.(reply to this comment)

From Mir Sunday, December 28, 2003, 14:46 (Agree/Disagree?) stop putting words in my mouth neez. I do think porn is evil because it has the potential to destroy healthy relationships, and people's sexuality. I never said the internet is evil. If I thought the internet was evil, I wouldn't be here, would I?(reply to this comment)

From neez Sunday, December 28, 2003, 18:38 (Agree/Disagree?) If a simple porno can destroy your relationship, then it probably wasn't a healthy relationship to begin with. Ok so I was right about your fear of porn(yes that's all it is). But if you read my post you may or may not notice the word 'POSSIBLY' thrown in there.. I seperated it with parenthesis for you & everything. Ok so here's your original post: "To give you an example, a young man at my work recently lost his job because the IT guys discovered hundreds of pornographic material on his PC. He was only 21. It was bloody stupid to do it at work (yuck! Gross!) but you have got to very compelled to do something like that knowing that you could get caught and lose your job. What I'm saying is that this kid obviously didn't have a computer at home. If he didn't have access to the internet at work this wouldn't have happened. What freaked me out the most were some of the images that he had. It was shocking really, and it takes a helluva lot to shock me! It makes me think, "bloody hell! What ARE people looking at on the internet? Well, I for one am not going to find out. I don't want that rubbish in my head, interrupting my thoughts and influencing my sexuality." So when you say.. "What I'm saying is that this kid obviously didn't have a computer at home. If he didn't have access to the internet at work this wouldn't have happened." What do you mean? But I'm amazed that you somehow managed to view a good portion of your workmates(evil..yuck! gross!) collection & not be instantly possesed by a pack of horny digitized demons.(reply to this comment)

From Mir Monday, December 29, 2003, 15:28 (Agree/Disagree?) LOL!!!! Ok sweetie, I can see how you might of thought that I thought the internet was "evil"!!! Honest, I only saw a picture of a "lady-boy", or was it a "boy-lady"? Who knows... I make no apologies for being disgusted at the thought of some pimply youth wanking off to porn at work... Or some old git for that matter... Or anyone, god-damn it!!! Wank at home! (reply to this comment)

From neez Monday, December 29, 2003, 17:33 (Agree/Disagree?) So was that the pic that made you question your sexuality? (reply to this comment)

From Joe H Monday, December 29, 2003, 17:56 (Agree/Disagree?) I don't know man, some of those Thai lady boys are pretty hot!(reply to this comment)

From Mir Friday, January 02, 2004, 07:18 (Agree/Disagree?) Urg Joe!!! I'm shocked!(reply to this comment)

From Joe H Sunday, December 28, 2003, 17:53 (Agree/Disagree?) How can porn destroy a person's sexuality? I've watched a lot of porn but my sexuality hasn't changed. Don't you think you're being a little bit paranoid? And furthermore, a lot of couples watch porn as part of a healthy relationship. I read a whole article about companies that put out classy porn (not softcore though) for couples' enjoyment. If watching a video tape is a threat to a relationship, then maybe that relationship wasn't too healthy to begin with. (reply to this comment)

From Tez Monday, December 29, 2003, 18:49 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree with your attitude completely!! Porn is no more than a bit of harmless fun & contrary to popular belief it doesn't make you go blind to have a bit of a wank on your own without your partner. If you don't like it then don't do it, it's just that simple. One of my best friends runs a porn shop & has done for many years, I often hang out in his shop to have a chat, whenever a customer comes in I pretend to be a customer as well to make them more comfortable (I've probably read about every magazine there is). I've also enjoyed using various porn with previous boyfriends & I know for a fact that a lot of them used it on their own as well but it's never caused me (or my partner of the time) any problems whatsoever. It makes me laugh when I hear people having conversations at the bus stop about "That shop, it's disgraceful! Imagine if it was in your neighbourhood!"... Well as this shop in particular doesn't have a window display, I can only assume they've been in there to see this said "disgraceful" material? Honestly, no-one is forcing them to look at it if they don't want too. Live & let live is what I say...(reply to this comment)

From Mir Monday, December 29, 2003, 15:41 (Agree/Disagree?) I think porn has the potential to destroy SOME people's sexuality... Ok. I'll give you an example. I had a boyfriend when I was 20 and he was 23. He hardly ever wanted to have sex. Then I discovered a HUGE box in his room absolutely stuffed full of hardcore porn. I then discovered that he wanked at home, he wanked at work, basically, he was a wanker. By the time it came for us to hang out together he was absolutely exhausted! LOL! I do think that if couples want to watch porn together, and they are both happy with it, it's up to them- whatever. Where I do think it's wrong is if the bloke (because it usually is the bloke) goes off and "does it" by himself. I can tell you from my experience and from chatting to my girlfriends about it, it feels like a betrayal. I personally would be miffed as hell if I thought my husband was wanking to porn in secret... so would Webel, wouldn't you, girlfriend? (reply to this comment)

From Webel Wednesday, December 31, 2003, 17:31 (Agree/Disagree?) I would not be impressed! because husband used to have magazines when he was single but since we got married and we made a commitment to each other before God we decided unanimously that we didn't want that in our marriage - we felt that images of others "doing it" was not going to enhance our relationship so that is how we came to our decision. I can see how some people like it and those images easily available and can be a turn on - but that's not the point, we want our marriage and our bed to be sacred, I think every person, single or married needs to decide what is best for them. Mir, your ex was horrible! what a tosspot!(reply to this comment)

From Nancy Friday, January 02, 2004, 14:08 (Agree/Disagree?) I hope that it's okay that I comment on this. Nothing more interesting going on in other theads. Well, I agree that some porn, especially hard core stuff, can change a relationship, sometimes for the worse. If a guy gets to the point that is what is expected, the usual romantic night with his wife or girlfriend becomes dull. Besides, couple should decide together what they each are comfortable with. It can be a little too much for one partner who is not comfortable with porn, especially if it changes the other partners desires and appetite for sex. I had a fiance with a drawer of magazines one time. He had them from when he was single and not dating anyone. I asked him to get rid of them because they bothered me. I told him that it would be different if we didn't have a great sexual relationship, but if he has me at home, then he certainly didn't need pictures of some stranger, who didn't have anything on me. So, he agreed and got rid of them. I asked him to, but I didn't force him. They made me uncomfortable. I wanted my partner to be fantasizing about me, not some air-brushed bimbo. That's not to say I am judgmental towards the entire adult industry, but most people will agree that it's not very real and it is pretty shady. A lot of women are exploited. A lot of pictures are air-brushed. A lot of drugs are going around. Not a lot of the people in the industry are there because of their own choices. They kind of fell into it and are controlled by it. There are exceptions. It seems like a lot of playboy bunnies have careers and make their own decisions and are incredibly beautiful, but there is still the dark side of the industry. Also, this is not to say that couples can't enjoy videos together. I've seen a couple soft porn videos that frat boys showed me in college. They didn't seem all that terrible. They were just lots of up close sex, and a lot of men are visual and enjoy that. But, once one is married or in a relationship, they have to make choices based on what they both want and are comfortable with. If one partner doesn't want it in the house and feels like it's not right, then it can interfere with the bedroom. Don't take me as a prude, either. I know a few very famous penthouse pets that were introduced to me by an NFL football player I dated and an adult club owner who was friends with a girlfriend of mine who occasionally danced there. I have a lot of respect for those women. They were beautiful and making lots of money and doing what they wanted. They'd made it far enough that they made their own decisions and weren't being exploited by anyone. Some couples are comfortable with having some risque aspects to their relationship, some are not. What one does in college with a boyfriend is also very different from what one does with their husband later on, especially once they have children. "Experimenting" has it's consequences and can interfere if both partners aren't comfortable. I don't mean to preach to anyone. But, I can see Mir and Webel's side. I can also see the men's side because I was once in college, dating some great men who were comfortable doing some things together on vacation in the Caribbean, in Vegas or just together in privacy that weren't straight 1950's sex with all your clothes on before you both go back to your seperate bedrooms down the hall. I think there is a difference between college relationships in one's 20's and a marriage. And all people differ, as well.(reply to this comment)

From neez Wednesday, December 31, 2003, 18:14 (Agree/Disagree?) "We want our bed to be sacred"..!? Omg that's such a turn on Webel I want you here & now..!! Maybe you can give Mir a few lessons on talking dirty. I'm now guessing that any guy entering a relationship with either of you will be left with no choice but to start collecting porn as soon as possible. Maybe you should do a Mir & start snooping through his stuff while he's down at the local church(titty bar). You never know. I wouldn't want you to be kidding yourself about that as well.(reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Saturday, January 03, 2004, 15:56 (Agree/Disagree?) Just curious, Neez, as to why you've been such a champion of porn latley on this thread? What about porn inspires such passion in you? Is it due to the lack of need to live up to judging or expectations of your performance by another party? Perhaps its the "safety" of knowing there's noone else there to dissapoint?? After all, porn doesn't need to be satisfied with your performance or lack thereof!! Personally, I'm not comfortable with it. I think its a sorry replacement for the real thing. Not to mention the abusive exploitive nature of the industry towards women. If Hugh Heffner, Larry Flint or any other of the pornographers think porn is so great let them take off their own damn clothes and see how many magazines they sell!(reply to this comment)

From neez Saturday, January 03, 2004, 20:11 (Agree/Disagree?) lol.. I was waiting for this. I can't believe one of the 18th century sisters didn't bring it up. I think I remeber how this started. It went something like this.. - Mir discusses the evils of porn with Joe. - Webel discusses the evils of TF god, & the not-so-evils of her god. - I comment on Webel's article. - Mir comes quickly to the rescue telling me yet again to grow up. - I tell Mir I don't mind hearing that from someone who thinks porn (& the internet) is evil. - & the rest is history. & Jerz you're absolutely right. It a sorry replacement for the real thing. Which is why I find it hard to believe Mir's ex "never wanted to have sex" beacuse he had a box-full of 'sorry alternatives' under his bed. I just don't understand people that refuse to see things for what they are. 'My boyfriend never wants to have sex with me. It couldn't possibly be my 16th century wife attitude. No it must be that inanimate box of magazines fault." That logic is faulty at best. Personaly I find porn amusing(they get paid to do that?) & slightly boring. Until you watch it with your gf.. Then the standard judgements & expectations on your performance remain. But at least it becomes slightly less difficult to dissapoint. :P But basically, I just like making totem-pole-up-they're-ass-christians deal with stuff. neez.. Champion Porn Defender (I think I'll need a logo :)(reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Monday, January 05, 2004, 19:15 (Agree/Disagree?) Well then, I wish you and your magazines, videos, and other "tools" a long and "amusing" life together!! Enjoy!!(reply to this comment)

From neez Tuesday, January 06, 2004, 07:49 (Agree/Disagree?) I don't collect everything that amuses me. & I was actually agreeing with you. Porn is exploitive, & it doesn't even come close to the real thing.(reply to this comment)

From neez Tuesday, January 06, 2004, 07:51 (Agree/Disagree?) & sorry JerseyGirl for thinking this was you.(reply to this comment)

From Jerseygirl Tuesday, January 06, 2004, 16:56 (Agree/Disagree?) You should know me better than that. No worries ,mate.(reply to this comment)

From neez Tuesday, January 06, 2004, 18:18 (Agree/Disagree?) True.. I was about to post 'Who are you & what have you done with JerseyGirl?'.. Then I looked up at the name. :P(reply to this comment)

From Webel Friday, January 02, 2004, 13:45 (Agree/Disagree?) WHATever! I should have known better than to discuss my private things so that an inmature bafoon like you can comment on it. I am happy with what I've got and that's all I care about what everyone else does is their business.(reply to this comment)

From neez Friday, January 02, 2004, 20:37 (Agree/Disagree?) You & your sis seem big on 'matureness'. If maturity invovles becoming anything even remotely resembling you.. I'll pass.(reply to this comment)

From Mir Tuesday, January 06, 2004, 17:45 (Agree/Disagree?) LOL! That's so mean! (reply to this comment)

From neez Monday, December 29, 2003, 17:44 (Agree/Disagree?) Well you've certainly had some traumatic experiences regarding porn. I'm wondering if there couldn't possibly be another reason for his not wanting to have sex with you. Just quietly it sounds like you not a big fan of sex in general..(reply to this comment)

From Joe H Monday, December 29, 2003, 17:39 (Agree/Disagree?) How do you know he didn't stop having sex with you before starting the porn collection? Maybe he got bored with you since you weren't kinky enough, or he got tired of having to endure 45 minutes of foreplay and 20 minutes of cunnilingus every freaking time. Not that there's anything wrong with you, you 2 may just not have been a good fit sexually. Hopefully you've found a nice Christian man who only likes it 3 times a week in the missionary position, complete with the sheet with the hole in it. ;)(reply to this comment)

From Mir Friday, January 02, 2004, 07:14 (Agree/Disagree?) LOL! I was waiting for stupid comments like that!!! LOLOLOL! Whatever boys, I'm not gonna start telling you about anything that I get up to. Suffice to say we have a very active and interesting sex life, oh, and one more thing, I ADORE sex .(reply to this comment)

From withheld Sunday, December 28, 2003, 20:15 (Agree/Disagree?) I am a womam and I am married. My husband and I sometimes watch porn together (not soft). I enjoy it very much, and I find nothing whatsoever offensive or immoral about it. Nor do I find it "degrading to women." (We watch porn with couples. Tell me how it works if there is a guy and a girl doing the same stuff to and with each other, and yet it's only degrading to women? Whatever.) We have a very healthly relationship; we have a very healthy sex life. We do not watch it excessively, but just once in a while for fun or just to do something different, or sometimes to get some fun new ideas. (Believe me, "Sex Talk" on the Oxygen channel is NOT a turn-on!) It has not affected our relationship in any way at all, except for perhaps a couple new positions. I think it is very misinformed to say that married couples watch it out of boredom with each other. Not the case with us. We have a GREAT time with or without porn. Often it's better without. I even think that especially for girls, sometimes those videos can really get you in the mood, or willing to try something new that you would not have thought of otherwise, or had the courage to talk about doing. Just my opinion. (reply to this comment)

From neez Sunday, December 28, 2003, 18:43 (Agree/Disagree?) lol.. great minds huh.. Mir.. They make all sorts of porn. You can even find 100% gerbil free straight soft(real soft) porn. If you ask enough of your workmates, I'm sure someone will help you out.(reply to this comment)

From Mir Monday, December 29, 2003, 15:31 (Agree/Disagree?) LOL!!! (reply to this comment)

from Anthony Monday, December 22, 2003 - 20:50 (Agree/Disagree?) And one more thing, the Lord just put it in my heart to inform you that your phrase "spiritual realities " is a contridiction in terms, as the reality is that the is no such thing as spirituality, a human spirit and however else one may try and use in the word spirit and be taken seriously. I just had to deliver my "soul" in the keeping with the Lord's great Spirit. And now, before you get all mad at me, you yourself said what sort of reaction you expected or did not expect from posting this article here. Jesus told me that you should've followed his check that he gave to you in the spirit and not posted here. But, like Paul, while he was still Saul, you kicked against the pricks (that of the very manly Jesus) instead of swallowing his fruit of righteousness from the tree of life. So now he had to smite you off your high-horse with the public ridicule from other members on this site and my gentle, yet stern reproach and message from the great white spirit through his black channel. Oh my child, how often would I have gathered you under my red wings, but ye would not? How many times must I be crucified before you learn to forsake your spiritual pride and listen to my still small voice, not just hear it, but listen and follow. For I am the way, the half-truth, and the life - even thought I died - trust me, just trust me, and don't ask why. (reply to this comment)

From Pete Sunday, December 28, 2003, 14:54 (Agree/Disagree?) How do you know that there is no such thing as spirituality or the human spirit? In order to "know" that these things don't exist you would have to know everything, wouldn't you?(reply to this comment)

from Sir Rantalot Monday, December 22, 2003 - 11:42 (Agree/Disagree?) LOL! this post is damn funny, you Christians never learn, do you? Well, if you love to serve, follow instead of lead... HAHA.. (reply to this comment)

From Webel Monday, December 22, 2003, 15:16 (Agree/Disagree?) The only person I am following is God. I guess you find it funny because you have never experienced what I have. I didn't expect to get a very good response from this article but I had to write it anyway, at least for those of you who decide to listen there is hope and redemption in Jesus Christ. I wanted to highlight that the wrongdoings and the sheer evil that has been done in the name of religion has nothing to do with God. I am an ordinary person just like anybody else and don't go around hurting people to further my own agenda or start "bible bashing" people on the street - this was from my heart and if you want to mock it that's upto you - I am not offended and it doesn't change a thing! I have said all I wanted to say.(reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Sunday, December 28, 2003, 15:52 (Agree/Disagree?) Your right! More "sheer evil" has been done in the name of religion than anything else!(reply to this comment)

From Anthony Monday, December 22, 2003, 20:30 (Agree/Disagree?) Webel: The only person I am following is God. Anthony: Ah-ha, so God is a person after all and not some "all-mighty"? LOL. I don't mock you, I almost pity you. You follow God and God follows me, and I follow...(reply to this comment)

from High on the Holy Ghost Monday, December 22, 2003 - 11:04 (Agree/Disagree?) those of us that come to this site and are christians understand what you are saying. whether you decide to be spiritual or not it is painfully clear that there is something evil about the cult. if there is a spiritual war which i believe their is, even if it is just in out minds is between good and evil. all the demons that are showing to those still in the cult are feeding fear. fear creates reality. yes berg had many evil spirits, he was a channel and had many spirits surrounding him. being a pedophile he was weak. but his greatest fault was being a false prophet and leading thousands astray being his own brand of perversian. the new wine taster as she calls herself is blind. didn't berg say god would punish the offending member? the blind leading the blind? we are in the last days and berg was a sign of the last days as a false prophet. although i believe we are at the end of a human era on earth i do not believe it will happen any time soon. we have a few thousand years to go if false prophets such as berg are kept under control by gods forces. god is a creator not a destroyer he does not want to see earth in such turmoil. revelations is a warning about what will happen when it is time. but no man knows(including berg) what hour our lord returns. satan is the deciever and has done a good job with those that follow the dead false prophet and now his blind wine taster, who leads the blind... (reply to this comment)

From DarkAngel Tuesday, December 23, 2003, 00:44 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes ,I understand what you're saying and i dig it . Off course Anthony and a few others have also their way of dealing with the after math of the Fam. but it also proves the point that Berg did hurt many people young and adults included.I sure hope that the Fam. burns in hell as well as all the leaders and responsible caracters still in the Fam. The good side off this site is that anyone can express their point of view concerning the Fam. But Hey Anthony I know that behind this mask there is a nice guy as there is behind mine .... (reply to this comment)

From neez Tuesday, December 23, 2003, 02:39 (Agree/Disagree?) he can dig it.. say no more(reply to this comment)

From Anthony Monday, December 22, 2003, 21:06 (Agree/Disagree?) High on the Holy Ghost: god is a creator not a destroyer he does not want to see earth in such turmoil. Anthony: Um, then how do you explain Noah's flood? And on another point, if God created man in his own image, how do you explain George W. Bush?? (reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Sunday, December 28, 2003, 15:46 (Agree/Disagree?) LOL!! Too funny! But I think George Bush shows "God's" sense of humor! Imagine a world without "Bushisms". What fun would that be??(reply to this comment)

From Dr Rantalot Monday, December 22, 2003, 11:38 (Agree/Disagree?) Nurse, give this patient 20cc haloperidol, now! he's delusional!(reply to this comment)

From farmer Tuesday, December 23, 2003, 02:37 (Agree/Disagree?) More than once, dear Doctor, I gave you credit for being very funny, yet how does haloperidol really help anyone with delusions??? delusion:a false belief about yourself or the situation you are in.....or the belief that you are much more important or powerful than you really are...(cited from Longman) By that definition you`d have to know someone`s situation super well, to conclude, he/she is deluded...even more you`d have to know in the case of religious belief "prophetically" the outcome of such belief or the fate of the believer...so there is no easy evidence, that someone is deluded religiously...at the minimum it takes time (By the fruits....) There are multitudes of people having delusions, not only in a religious way...even the most educated ones...as evidenced by the victims who fell prey in their greed to all kinds of financial advisors, having only one goal: to cheat the investors.Apart from that there are other varieties of delusions, e.g. due to defects of the sensory organs etc. or simply being fooled by them/and the mind....Then again you have with TV-productions like Canned camera, Orwell`s radioprogram etc. ample proof, that people can be easily deluded. My question would be: Have you ever been deluded????? If No: Woooooooooooooooooow!!!!!!! If yes: Then why pick on others, who are in the same boat, unless you can really prove their delusion is to their and other people`s h e a v y disadvantage!(reply to this comment)

From Dr Rantalot Wednesday, December 24, 2003, 03:24 (Agree/Disagree?) I reserve the right to make fun of anyone's delusions. The day I post here professing faith in Bacchus, the Roman god of drunkenness, or saying that I stayed awake just a few days too long and met my guardian angel, is the day you all have the right to make fun of me, I'll deserve it. Yes, we all have delusions, and Christianity is a particularly dangerous delusion, one of humility, masochism, and servitude, if you enjoy that life that's ok with me. I personally don't enjoy being on the receiving end of anal sex, but some friends of mine do, it's a taste thing I guess.(reply to this comment)

From Sir Rantalot Wednesday, December 24, 2003, 03:31 (Agree/Disagree?) Plus, I'm doing Weber a favour, Christians love to be ridiculed for their faith, it makes them feel saintly and like martyrs, Weber probably went to bed last night feeling satisfied. i think it takes more courage and strength to take responibility for your own life, and face the world head on, alone, rather than take refuge in a god. The solitary path is harder, but what doesn't kill you makes you stronger. No one ever said life was easy, facing it alone is the true test of strength, with yourself as your most ruthless critic and your most valuble resource. It time to grow up... "Convictions cause convicts"(reply to this comment)

From 1984 Saturday, December 27, 2003, 23:13 (Agree/Disagree?) very significant and clever observations, it takes a while to get to that point(reply to this comment)

From Webel Saturday, December 27, 2003, 20:35 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes I did go to bed satisfied last night thank you! but not because I suffered but because I had a very, very good time:) It's absurd to suggest the Christians enjoy suffering - we don't like suffering anymore than anyone else, it just so happens that we live in a Godless world and to have any moral belief means to face controversy and rejection - but that's OK, I will be a convict any day because I am a Christian, certainly not as TF portrayed it! they deserve to be incarcerated for being perverts! although granted, there are some poor deluded souls there that never abused anyone and are genuine and want to serve God. I pray for them on a regular basis that God will rescue them from their deception! BTW I appreciate your concern about growing up - I have grown up, thank you - facing the big bad world clueless and skint after leaving TF left me no choice.(reply to this comment)

From Sir Rantalot Friday, January 02, 2004, 07:25 (Agree/Disagree?) LOL!! I won't repeat myself, so I suggest you look at my comment on my article " The dark night of the soul", for a full reply.(reply to this comment)

From question Wednesday, December 31, 2003, 20:16 (Agree/Disagree?) just curious about which church you belong to, Webel.(reply to this comment)

From Webel Tuesday, January 06, 2004, 15:56 (Agree/Disagree?) I go to a non denominational called Christ Community church and it's close to my home but I don't belong to it as such - many people make the mistake of thinking that their church is all there is and can never see beyond it - I have travelled and seen too much in my life to have that kind of mentality! I feel comfortable going to any church and after attending once or twice I decide whether or not I want to make it my regular church - and if it becomes controlling, and start preaching about giving money every sermon my husband and I would move on. We just want to follow what the Bible says and not what man says, so the answer to your question should really be the place I worship God the most is in my heart. (reply to this comment)

From church Sunday, January 11, 2004, 11:49 (Agree/Disagree?) I had a very bad experience with a so-called nondenominational Church. They freaked me out when it came to the way they worshiped. It was too similar to TF….hands in the air, occasional “tongues,” musicians with guitars and bongos. In short, it SPOOKED me out. I can’t be reminded of any of that! There was a time when I sought out a church. The best experience I’ve had was in the Catholic Church which I attend with relatives on Christmas Eve and Easter etc. They are very, very different than the way I was brought up and there is a certain amount of solace in ceremony. I am, however, not able to accept all the dogma that comes with being a real Catholic, so I settled with being a happy agnostic. I really don’t know if God exists…and neither does anyone!(reply to this comment)

From Mir Sunday, December 28, 2003, 14:52 (Agree/Disagree?) LOL!!!! You crack me up girlfrend!!!! I miss you terribly! :-((reply to this comment)