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

from heleton Friday, August 17, 2007 - 07:22 (Agree/Disagree?) As much as I love a good debate / discussion, I feel that I’ve already spent way too much time on this thread. So, in the interest of maintaining my other interests, I’ve decided to reply to all of the comments to date that I deem worthy of responses (or that are simply so absurd that they must be addressed). If your name is incorrectly capitalized, blame MS Word (for those of you who have just joined the ranks of us Systemites, that’s a computer program, not an allusion to the Holy Scripture). Finally, my apologies for not posting sooner; I just moved into a new apartment and I didn’t have internet access until yesterday. Here goes. Murasaki: It sounds like you’ve found something that works for you. More power to you. It also sounds like you’re open to other ideas, which I believe to be a healthy way to perceive the world. Lastly, I don’t get the impression that you believe you’re right and everyone who isn’t Christian is wrong. The world needs more people like you, Christian or not. I, too, like to believe in something more than just myself. For me, it’s more of a belief in a common energy (or life force) that is shared by every living thing. I’ll admit, it smacks of New Age cheese, but life really does amaze me. “Celebrate this chance to be alive and breathing.” - MJK Steam: “I and many others would rather seek truth even if it turns out to be inconvenient, or unpleasant.” Well said. Thatata: Great quote by Nietzsche. For the record, I was not bashing rebellion or atheism. Rebellion has its place, but I tend to see it as more of a starting point than as a place where one would want to end up. Atheism also has its place, but it can be just as near-sided as any religion. Atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no god. Agnosticism: an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge. I will stand by my belief that religion is inherently problematic. Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. Whenever you have a group of people living according to the rules and beliefs of another group of people, that group has a philosophical disadvantage. That group has limited itself concerning certain aspects of its existence, thereby stunting the growth of society at large. Case in point: The belief in white supremacy. You have a group of rednecks that get together in big groups and perpetuate the idea that “white” people are superior to people with differently pigmented skin. They take that belief with them wherever they go and use demeaning words and ignorant opinions to spread their belief. As long as that group of people exists, it will inject faulty ideas into the collective consciousness of society. The same is true of Christians. As long as Christianity as we know it exists, there will be people spreading the ideas that: - Christianity is the only right path - Everyone who isn’t Christian is wrong (and according to some denominations, will end up in Hell) - There is a male entity that rules the universe (does anyone else see why this belief could be problematic?) Do you get the picture? The Abrahamic / monotheistic faiths have caused the world too much pain already.* I feel that it’s time we try something new. It is not my intention to indoctrinate anyone; I am not so pretentious as to believe that my personal doctrine would work for a single person on this planet besides me. It is , however, my intention to motivate people to start informing themselves. Is that so wrong? I truly believe that education is the key to a less violent future.** There I go again, sounding idealistic and New Age. But that’s what I believe. In my own personal experience, the more I learn, the more I’m able to accept people for what they are, who they are, and even how they act. Why? Because I understand people better - I understand their motivations, their backgrounds, their socioeconomic statuses, their cultures, their religious beliefs . I understand mental disorders, relational dialectics, sexual scripts, and a whole slew of other models of the behaviors and limitations of humans. My hypothetical crusade is not so much a crusade to put an end to religion as it is a crusade to promote widespread understanding and acceptance. If you read back to my old post (the one you cited), you might notice that I stated, “People need to be educated,” before I jokingly entertained the notion of organizing a “campaign against religion.” I don’t give a flying copulation session how people educate themselves. However, it is my opinion that diversity is key. If you’ve grown up on Christianity and you study the Bible, that’s probably what you’ll believe. If, on the other hand, you take a break from the Bible and you study the Koran, the I Ching, the Satanic Bible, and other assorted religious and philosophical texts with an open mind (which I feel comes with knowledge), you’ll probably have a much healthier worldview. * This may be a simplistic, underdeveloped statement. One could argue that religion is just a scapegoat, that humans are innately malevolent. Whatever. Eliminate religion and you have one less excuse for people to behave unseemly (i.e., God wants me to use “the rod” on my child / God feels that my wife should be subservient to me / God wants me to treat these people condescendingly because of their “evil” behaviors). ** There is scientific evidence that uneducated humans are more likely to act violently than their educated counterparts. Agnostic.. Jesus: There’s definitely some division concerning the belief that Jesus actually did exist. There are a great many secular historians that believe he did. I don’t know whether he did or not. If he did, great. If not, I’m not going to lose any sleep over it. My point was not to prove his existence (I will admit that the verdict is out on that one), but rather to acknowledge that the teachings presented in the Gospels contain some good pointers (much in the same way that Aesop’s Fables do). I realize one might surmise that I truly believe in Jesus’ existence after reading my blurb about Jesus. To clarify, the Jesus I refer to is not the concrete reality of a guy who walked the earth 2,000 years ago, but rather the character referred to in the Gospels. I didn’t want to get too in depth - my little article had, at that point, already sparked more discussion than I had bargained for. Sar: Thank you for challenging my views! You bring up some good points. It is very true that, due to the nature of the conflicts in the Middle East, fighting is the only option for many. I will also acknowledge that it is simplistic to blame religion (and a belief in the afterlife) for war. However, I believe that war would not exist on such a grand scale, were there not a pervasive belief (however vague) in an afterlife. You wrote, “If there weren't religion there would simply be another cause that people would be willing to give their life for, such as nationalism, patriotism, racism, or even "human rights".” I agree. If you’ll read my post again (the one to which you responded), you might notice this statement: “If the world was free of religion we'd have one less dividing line.” At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I really do feel that education is the antidote. Show people that there are other (more “humane”) ways to resolve conflicts. Help people find the courage to challenge ideas like nationalism, patriotism, and racism. Empower the powerless classes with education and eventually the balance of power will shift back to the people and away from the oligarchs. A closing thought: Contrary to popular belief, there are enough resources in this world for all of us to live comfortably. Samuel: Oh, Samuel. You’re hardly worth my time, but here goes. I’ll respond to whatever was intelligible enough to warrant a response; to be perfectly honest, I didn’t understand all of it. If you feel I haven’t responded sufficiently, feel free to peruse my responses to the others. I’m sure you’ll find your answers there. First off, I’m happy for you that you found God in the Bible. Had He been pressed pretty well? Does He have a penis? I mean, He did create man in His image and all. If you’re serious about the US “making fair progress considering all the difficulties in Iraq,” you’ve illustrated the union of church and state far better than I could have with my own words. If you wrote that to antagonize me, it was a good attempt, but I’m getting numb to that particular brand of ignorance. “What Heleton considers a crutch, I consider to be a being that helps me through life” Hmmm.. You mean, like.. Oh, I don’t know.. A crutch, maybe? I’m happy that you got your “conscience” from God. I picked mine up at my local Life Experience Supermarket. I think I’ve actually seen a couple of those ones from God Mart - they’re made of plastic. “I consider Jesus to man who died to take the punishment for my sin.” Wow. Bet that took a lot of consideration. Not like you read that somewhere or anything. “I think Heleton's idea that religious people are living to their own detriment is more likely based on her bias against religion, than it is on any statistics or facts.” That’s fair, in that there are no statistics determining whether or not religion is causing people to live to their detriment. My point, once again, was that religion is one of those things that enables opportunistic people (and groups of people) to do harmful things (i.e., people vote for Bush because they perceive him as a “good Christian,” then Bush uses his office to push through all manner of destructive legislation). “I believe that Jesus came to explain the Judaic law, and show how it was supposed to be done, and finally fulffill it with her death on the cross.” Gee, this sounds an awful lot like something I heard when I was a little kid and my family was in this.. ”I don't see what religion has to do with race.” Never mind. “I think there is a vast difference between the two. The mean, vindictive, hateful God that The Family drove into our heads was a means of control. Don't leave The Family, or God won't be happy with you. Make sure you send us 10% of your home income (because we're running low on sherry), you wouldn't want God to be mad at you. All a means of control.” So what you’re saying is that non-cult Christians don’t attempt to retain their converts / supporters? And your average pastor of your average nice church doesn’t drive a nice SUV? I’ll get serious for just one moment. Wake up. The Family is a microcosm of Christianity (and religion at large). It’s just more distilled. Christianity = dirt weed The Family = kief “My comment that the USA is the greatest, most powerful nation on Earth was said in a humorous and sarcastic tone. But I do think it's better than believing that the US is a big bully.” So you’re stating that the US isn’t a big bully? Should I even bother responding to you? “It would be a bit hypocritical for an atheist evangelist to then go and critize religion for their own evangelism.” You’re absolutely right. If I ever meet an atheist evangelist (or an atheist, at that), I will let him/her know just that. “As far as her not seeing anything good coming out of religious beliefs, she doesn't have to look far.” I whole heartedly agree. I don’t have to look far to not see anything good coming out of religious beliefs. “What stops me from spreading dirty rumors about people is not the laws against slander, but a commandment in The Bible that says "Thou shalt not bear false witness."” Good for you. What stops me from spreading dirty rumors about people is the realization that nothing positive will come of it. I don’t need the Bible to tell me that; there are a million and one other paths that will tell me the exact same thing in a million and one different ways. What makes the Bible so special? “What keeps Christians from committing adultery is an commandment against it in The Bible.” So fear keeps Christians from cheating on each other. That really sucks. In my agnostic relationship, love keeps us from cheating on each other. “religious beliefs are often what motivates people to give to charity, or drill wells in the third world, or volunteer their time.” I know a lot of true altruists, and the vast majority of them are not Christian. Christianity has this nasty reputation for giving conditional aid. I’ll let you guess what the condition is. “I don't think Bush necessarily took a strong moral stance against gay marriage, I think it was more of a political stance.” You think? Maybe you should read my post again. “IMO, ignorance is rejecting an idea simply because it does not agree with your preconcieved notion.” Agreed. “People are not ignorant, they do things that are ignorant.” Disagreed. Some people truly are ignorant, and their ignorance motivates them to do ignorant things. “I'd like to see what Helton considers to be "real information".” Well, for starters, it might have a scientific foundation. I’m a little more likely to give credence to hypotheses, theories, studies, experiments, and polls, than to a book that is comprised of selections from another book (which was written thousands of years ago by a people who are, to this day, fighting over some shitty barren plot of land because they think it’s special for some unfathomable reason) and some random Gospels that were written decades (or centuries, by some accounts) after their subject died (how much does a story change in a year?), finally translated by British royalty to suit some bloated King’s purpose. Need I go on? “If you can get someone thinking for themselves, that is a great thing.” Agreed. “But bear in mind that many people of all religions already think for themselves.” Also agreed, but there are limitations imposed by those religions as to what extent people may think for themselves. All religions have built-in tools for control (and the retention of converts). “They don't just listen to what their leaders say, they check it out and see if it makes sense to them.” To speak of sense and sensibility in the context of religion is absurd. “That's what I've learned to do.” Could’ve fooled me! “Talking down to people, telling them that they are ignorant and they believe in a lie ( when you have nothing to prove it ) is only going to turn free thinking people off.” It’s not the free thinking people I’m concerned about. I don’t think free thinking people, by and large, accept absurdities as fact. And true, I have no way to prove that heaven is a fairy tale. I also have no way to prove that Hansel and Gretel is a fairy tale. For some reason adults generally accept the latter. “Helton, all I'm going to say is just make sure you have your life together and know who you are and what you want out of it before you go on a campaign to tell other people what life is all about.” Thanks, Mom. “While many people on here may strongly believe that God does not exist, I think if they are honest with themselves they will admit they cannot prove it either.” I don’t think it’s ever been the goal of agnostics (or atheists) to prove the non-existence of God - rather, it has been the goal of such individuals to further the pursuit of objective learning rather than dogma. “My apologies to Heleton, all I read in his profile was the phrase "Warehouse Bitch". Kinda confused me.” No offense taken. I realize that your kind are easily confused, and have come to expect these sorts of mix-ups. (reply to this comment)

From murasaki Monday, August 20, 2007, 04:54 (Agree/Disagree?) Yikes, according to your definition of agnosticism as "an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge", I am one. So much for my protestations of faith, lol! Is it unusual to be able to intellectually affirm the uncertainty to all claims to ultimate knowledge, while maintaining faith and belief in a possible explanation for the inexplainable? (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Tuesday, August 21, 2007, 08:42 (Agree/Disagree?) I would say yes, because I am doing the same thing. In fairness, I have to concede that there is no proof of the existence of God, but I still believe strongly in him. If there was proof of the existence of God, then there would be no need for faith. Now, I see proof of the existence of God in the universe and in nature, but that is not unmistakable proof. One could always say that the universe and nature were created by an explosion of gases, and humans were created through Evolution, but after researching those points of view, I find that neither of them make any sense to me, and the idea of a Creator makes a lot more sense. While it's possible that humans may have been created from the Evolutionary process, it does not answer all the questions (" Where did the little fish come from?" "If matter was created from energy, why wasn't anti-matter created also, as one would find in observed science?" "How is it that life can evolve from non life, against the rules of biology?") Indeed, cell theory has three tenets, and they are: 1. The cell is the basic unit of life. 2. All organisms are made of cells. 3. All cells come from pre-existing cells. As far as imperfect humans are concerned, I beleive there is no such thing as ultimate knowledge.(reply to this comment)

From thatata Saturday, August 18, 2007, 00:37 (Agree/Disagree?) Feel no need to reply to this comment. There is probally no real argument between us anyway, but what I want to say- in my opinion rebellion always has its place. Even if nothing comes out of it it is neccesary. You could even say in a manner of speaking or thinking that the more "unutilitarian" rebellion is the more better. There will always be conflict. Both extreme rationality as well as, ratonalized irrationality with authoritarian tendencys will always be around, as well as the reaction against these- rebellion! You probally won't agree with this quote..."Liberty, not just as an ideal but as a constant recreator of energy, in the way that it existed in certain people and in a way that it provides a model for us all, must rule out any idea of comfortable equilibrium and conceive itself as constant erethism."- Andre Breton (reply to this comment)

from murasaki Tuesday, August 14, 2007 - 06:15 (Agree/Disagree?) I still believe in Jesus the afterlife......and let the mud-slinging begin! ;) I don't say that I'm a Christian per say, 'cause I don't attend church or take "word time" and I can't think of any other group of people to affiliate myself with as far as belief goes. I also think the Family is full of deluded freeloaders with a martyr-complex who have lost touch with reality. I immunize my kids, am attending uni, and thank God with all my heart that my kids won't have to go what I did growing up. I'm not at all dogmatic about what I believe, I can acknowledge the flaws in the authenticity of scripture and am willing to admit that holding on to my belief is very likely just a coping mechanism. One of my favorite definitions of faith is described as "that faculty which enables us to believe things which we know to be untrue." I think I've been able to differentiate between family doctrines and my own values, the thing is, my own values are deeply enmeshed with my belief system, which include belief in God, Jesus and what have you. I can't say much for the rest of the Bible, but I like the words of Jesus, I like what he stood for and those principles still resonate with me on a personal level. Yes, I know, it's likely I feel this way because of the way I was brought up. But it works for me. (reply to this comment)

From Fish Tuesday, August 14, 2007, 06:55 (Agree/Disagree?) Give it a year or two, then come back here and tell us if you still feel the same.(reply to this comment)

From murasaki Thursday, August 16, 2007, 09:05 (Agree/Disagree?) I've already been out for over 4 years so I don't know that another year or two would make much of a difference. Of course, I suppose it's possible though. I'm just not certain that the journey to self-discovery ends with inevitable arrival in the land of agnosticism. I've looked into other religions out of curiosity and similar to what others have mentioned, I found I liked some of the ideas of buddhism, neopaganism and even witchcraft. I was creeped out by islam though, reading about Mohammed had an eerie resemblance to my opinion of Berg. I'm not at all attracted to ritual and ceremony, but I like believing in something more than just myself. I think I've probably created a Jesus in my own mind that is quite different to the standard church definition, I stick with what I like and feel good about and don't really worry about the rest. It's possible I might find enlightenment by studying other religions more deeply, but I honestly couldn't be bothered. ;) (reply to this comment)

From steam Thursday, August 16, 2007, 10:16 (Agree/Disagree?) You are right that you are unlikely to change our mind if you do not change the reason that you believe what you do. This is the reason you gave "I stick with what I like and feel good about and don't really worry about the rest." If that works for you than go for it. It certainly can be an approach to true happiness. I and many others would rather seek truth even if it turns out to be inconvenient, or unpleasant. Than happily live with an unexamined convenient belief. But it comes down to what one values most and I cannot say personal happiness is certainly a lower value than consistency although to me it is.(reply to this comment)

From murasaki Thursday, August 16, 2007, 23:58 (Agree/Disagree?) I think it also depends on personal experience. I have reasons why I believe what I do and why I hold on to those beliefs and I think I'm quite open to accepting new ideas into my belief system if I feel it is worthwhile and of value. My reasons are based on my own previous experience, not on anything unique to my upbringing in the family. Truth is extremely subjective to the individual, we all find our own truth or continue to search if we feel nothing is acceptable. (reply to this comment)

From vacuous Friday, August 17, 2007, 03:14 (Agree/Disagree?) I think to say that truth is subjective and imply that human beliefs are the final arbiter of reality is quite arrogant. To tag truth onto human perception where man decides what is real and true and what is not is hugely anthropocentric(reply to this comment)

From vix Friday, August 17, 2007, 03:16 (Agree/Disagree?) I like that you use words that make my head hurt when I try to read them right after I've got up. (reply to this comment)

From murasaki Monday, August 20, 2007, 04:44 (Agree/Disagree?) Thanks vacuous, for helping me expand my vocabulary.;) Arrogance was not intended, all I meant to imply was that what an individual holds to be truth can be far removed from provable fact. Put it this way, two people see the same event from different perspectives, they both recall a different story. Both are telling the truth, as they see it, and yet neither have the pure facts. As far as religion and faith go, it's not something that is provable one way or the other, as far as I know at least, and yet both sides claim to be in possession of or pursuance of "truth". While I see fact and logic to be absolute, I think of truth and reality as often being used in a highly personal, emotional context and subject to individual perspective. I know I don't have the secrets of the universe nor do I claim a monopoly on truth. I can admire those who are able to set aside preconceived notions in order to seek logic and base their belief on fact, particularly if they are able to maintain a solid value system while doing it. I think at the end of the day we all have to find our own "truth", hopefully while maintaining an open mind for new facts and remaining tolerant to other points of view.(reply to this comment)

From thatata Thursday, August 16, 2007, 11:15 (Agree/Disagree?) "If you desire peace of soul and happiness, then believe; if you would be a disciple of truth then inquire..."-Nietzsche And a quote for every human being, "History is a set of rules governed by the cowardice of individuals"-Andre Breton(paraphrase)(reply to this comment)

from fragiletiger Saturday, August 11, 2007 - 01:11 (Agree/Disagree?) I'd say you write less because you care and more because you like fundamentalist Christians, feel you and you alone have found the ultimate truth and must share it with the rest of us poor plebs. (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Saturday, August 11, 2007, 04:14 (Agree/Disagree?) Commas do make a difference!(reply to this comment)

From heleton Saturday, August 11, 2007, 04:11 (Agree/Disagree?) Oh, I get it. Because I, like fundamentalist Christians.(reply to this comment)

From heleton Saturday, August 11, 2007, 03:16 (Agree/Disagree?) Because I like fundamentalist Christians, or because I am like fundamentalist Christians? I'll admit, my little blog was pretty preachy. I was in a weird head space when I wrote it. I just cringe whenever I meet people in any kind of recovery (and yes, getting out of a cult entails some recovery) who use God as a crutch. Especially exers. I say we learn to affirm ourselves as we move forward. We were raised with all that "I can't even walk without you holding my hand" bullshit, and now we have a generation of exers who feel as though they can't do anything without some outside source of power. Well, my god is within me. As far as me and me alone finding the ultimate truth is concerned, I hate to break it to you, but Agnosticism is on the rise. As far as ultimate truth is concerned, I could be dead wrong. For all I know, when we die we all go to WalMart. Your guess is as good as mine. I just hate to see people living religiously to their own detriment (and the detriment of society / earth).(reply to this comment)

from Phoenixkidd Friday, August 10, 2007 - 06:59 (Agree/Disagree?) Totally agnostic here, with a sense of spirituality, if that makes sense. I will not rule out certain phenomena such as ghosts, deja vu, or even curses and blessings from mortals. Needless to say God is simply an image people have conjured up to make sense of our unpredictable lives. A web of deceit, 20/20 hindsight, and superstition have been weaved by religious teachers for 1000's of years, mostly in attempt to gain prestige and control. (reply to this comment)

From thatata Friday, August 10, 2007, 09:23 (Agree/Disagree?) Yeah,it could just be people and the natural world.As if there was somekind of Word behind Nature.People always getting lost in words,not that I dont like words.But words are abstraction,I could make my own.The trinity of God,Jesus,and the Holy Ghost I change to the trinity of Sensation/Words,/Object.This trinity all melts together and thats why it makes sense,the trinity of christianity seems at times like a forcable love of number,like what is this nebulous Holy Ghost?(reply to this comment)

From heleton Friday, August 10, 2007, 08:51 (Agree/Disagree?) Agnosticism and spirituality are by no means mutually exclusive. Agnosticism is just being honest with yourself and acknowledging that you don't know what makes the world spin. I've read up on different religions / paths and I identify the most with Buddhism and Neo-Paganism. They're both very positive paths in their own rights. The teachings of Jesus are very relevant as well (in a philosophical context), but he had some delusions of grandeur going on and he never figured out that he was the product of an extramarital affair, so I can't take him too seriously as a life coach. For me, it's a turn off when people think they have to have deities to follow a spiritual path. To use the symbolism of an important figure is one thing, but to consider someone to be superhuman or godlike is quite another(reply to this comment)

From thatata Friday, August 10, 2007, 10:19 (Agree/Disagree?) You probally read a bit on Zen but if you havent youll probally like it.As far as delusions of grandeur go,we are not all enlightened beings,Grandeur is not such a bad thing,is it? And how is Jesus relevant in a philosophical context,other then a Buddhist interpretation?I know he can be interpreted artistically.Usually hes interpreted moralistically as well as religiously,what is your interpretation? (reply to this comment)

From heleton Friday, August 10, 2007, 13:48 (Agree/Disagree?) I tend to think that Jesus spoke metaphorically about God. Wisecracks about delusions aside, I think there's a good chance that Jesus was well aware that his mom was a tramp, and when he spoke about being God's son, he meant it in the context of everyone being God's children. Jesus was definitely a philosopher - a spiritual guide as well, but to be a spiritual guide, one must have something to say, right? He took the Judaic tradition and interpreted it in ways that were thought of as heretical. He stood up to authority and challenged the motives and the rules of people in positions of power. But whatever he was, it seems like he was a pretty bad ass dude, and he had something to share with the world.(reply to this comment)

From Agnostic but doesn't believe in Jesus Wednesday, August 15, 2007, 17:13 (Agree/Disagree?) You assume the sod existed in the way we've traditionally come to accept as fact. IMO "Jesus" is nothing more than the combined figments of imagination, lies, and forgeries of millions of cults and their gurus. *pukes*(reply to this comment)

from solemn Thursday, August 09, 2007 - 09:32 (Agree/Disagree?) I believe in the afterlife. In fact, in my next life I want to be a left sock. Then when I am being washed and I see where the other left socks are running off to so I can follow them and find out where all my left socks have been disappearing to all these years. (reply to this comment)

From heleton Friday, August 10, 2007, 03:27 (Agree/Disagree?) Dude - you have right and left socks? I catch so much shit for that. Everyone says I have OCD. But I can feel it when I have a right sock on my left foot, or vise versa. They get all bunched up.(reply to this comment)

From Nick Thursday, August 09, 2007, 13:46 (Agree/Disagree?) Don't you watch South Park???? It's the The underpants gnomes! They are the ones that steal your socks. Duh!(reply to this comment)

From sar Thursday, August 09, 2007, 14:00 (Agree/Disagree?) Underpants gnomes steal underpants. uh duh!(reply to this comment)

From smashingrrl Thursday, August 09, 2007, 13:25 (Agree/Disagree?) I wanna be a salt lick.(reply to this comment)

From nix Thursday, August 09, 2007, 14:22 (Agree/Disagree?) I must have read that 4 times before it sank in. ;)(reply to this comment)

From vix Thursday, August 09, 2007, 14:24 (Agree/Disagree?) Explain it to me, please. I'm dense. (Unless it's in any way connected to sex. Then I'm just fine with not knowing.) (reply to this comment)

From AndyH Friday, August 10, 2007, 07:52 (Agree/Disagree?) She wants to be an object that exists solely to be licked. No, that's not sexual at all. (reply to this comment)

From thatata Friday, August 10, 2007, 09:35 (Agree/Disagree?) I exist. solely to be licked;yet I am not licked.I mean this sentence unsexually,I think.(reply to this comment)

From thatata Friday, August 10, 2007, 09:40 (Agree/Disagree?) and with the bravado of an idiot.(reply to this comment)

From solemn Thursday, August 09, 2007, 09:34 (Agree/Disagree?) Hmmm, came out wrong, but you get the point.(reply to this comment)

from mia1 Thursday, August 09, 2007 - 05:48 (Agree/Disagree?) Try not to care so much, especially at 1am; it is unhealthy and can give you ulcers. As far as god or religion, try not to give a shit, there are so many better things you could do with your time then preaching anti religion. oh, and last but not least eat on!!!! I can't touch chips(diet), so eat some for me!! Rock on! (reply to this comment)

From heleton Friday, August 10, 2007, 03:33 (Agree/Disagree?) I've actually been pretty laid back lately - I guess I just felt like ranting lastnight. In retrospect, I can't believe I wrote all that crap. As far as religion is concerned, one of my life's goals is to help as many people as possible to break away from religion. Not just because I grew up in the cult, although that's a big part of it. I see religion as inherently problematic. It's like a belief in "race." Nothing good will ever come of those types of beliefs.(reply to this comment)

From mia1 Friday, August 10, 2007, 08:20 (Agree/Disagree?) Why would you want to help people break away from religion? I mean family and friends I understand but anyone else well it's their problem. Besides can't that turn into a religion, you know like, you could start you're own cult!!(reply to this comment)

From heleton Friday, August 10, 2007, 13:37 (Agree/Disagree?) The way I see it, religion is one of the biggest factors in wars, and one of the most effective tools for control. If the world was free of religion we'd have one less dividing line. Religion and the beliefs that come with it enable armies to exist - if the Christians in the US Army and the Muslim fighters in the Middle East didn't believe in an afterlife, do you really think they'd throw their lives away for someone else's cause? Religion also enables people like George W Bush to be president. You wanna hear something sick? My dad voted for Dubya. My dad. The man who raised me to be a pacifist, taught me about special interests in the middle east, told me to love my neighbor.. He voted for George W Bush. Why? Because Dubya took a strong moral stance against gay marriage. People need to be educated; that's the only way things are going to change in this world. Religion is one of the last remaining vestiges of the widespread ignorance that used to characterize humanity. It amazes me that it still has such a strong stranglehold on so much of the world, when so much real information is available. You could say that I'm anti-religion with an almost religious fervor. I've managed to open the eyes of several people and get them to start thinking for themselves. The way I see it, I'm undoing some of the damage my parents did. Maybe in the future I'll organize some sort of campaign against religion. I truly believe that I'd be doing the world a huge favor.(reply to this comment)

From mia1 Sunday, August 12, 2007, 14:07 (Agree/Disagree?) I see your point, and good luck.(reply to this comment)

From sar Sunday, August 12, 2007, 04:32 (Agree/Disagree?) I think you give too much credit to religion. I believe many of the middle east fighters would still be fighting if they thought this was their only life. They don't see it as someone else's cause, it is their own cause. They, their friends or their family are gonna die if they don't fight, they might as well die fighting. Many of them will have also had family and friends already killed in the conflict and want revenge. I also know a couple of atheists US airforce pilots fighting Iraq. So, I think its simplistic to put it down to religion. I also see the war as one between nations rather than between religions. If there weren't religion there would simply be another cause that people would be willing to give their life for, such as nationalism, patriotism, racism, or even "human rights". Some people join the army for adventure. Many people want a cause to give their life for, it gives a sense of purpose. Many people also like risk and / or are suicidal. Combine the two and its not so strange. They may do it in the name of religion, but if it weren't religion it would just be something else.(reply to this comment)

from thatata Thursday, August 09, 2007 - 05:29 (Agree/Disagree?) I think I would call myself an agnostic.People have different ways of not believing in God;for some people its because they belive in Mans dignity,occasionally theyll romantically align themselves with Satan(sometimes consciously).They prop themselves up as a rebel in defiance of this indignity,and they are indignant.For me though God is just unbeliveable.I mean do I want explanations for unexplainable things(emphasis on" unexplainable").For some people the war against God is a war of thoughts,there furious at these bad explanations,and arbitrary fairytales theyd been told as a kid,it makes them furious when they hear a lie. As for homophobia,there is different kinds of homophobia.It can mean you hate homos and wish they disappered,or it can mean youre just uncomfortable around gay people.It can be a so-called "moral "judgement,or it can be an aesthetic dislike.And I know some people would think that the guy thats "homophobic" is actually secretly gay,and therefore insecure,but the fact is a lot of heterosexual males dont want to see gay stuff,it seems almost instinctual.But I guess we could all be cooler,or can we? (reply to this comment)

From heleton Friday, August 10, 2007, 03:43 (Agree/Disagree?) To believe in Satan, one must believe in God. I used to be angry with God, then I realized how pointless that was. I believe that homophobia is learned. Scientific and Sociological evidence points toward the idea that it is learned. People should feel no less comfortable around gay people than they do around straight people. That's just ridiculous. American culture is so preoccupied with homosexuality. Males in this culture are taught to spend so much time, energy and money making themselves appear as straight as possible. For what? It's those damn Judaic values popping up again. Seriously people, we're better than that! IMHO, We're all a little gay. All of us.(reply to this comment)

From thatata Friday, August 10, 2007, 04:38 (Agree/Disagree?) Yeah,I think I might agree with you,though Im sure what IMHO means.I also understand that scientific or sociological thinking,points to the idea that there are no"instincts"and only"general drives".Still in society or in are own selves we think theres a "real person" a real"identity",that exists. Who knows maybe Homosexuals are repressed Heterosexuals?Could that make sense?Or does it have to work the other way around,only?(reply to this comment)

From heleton Saturday, August 11, 2007, 03:21 (Agree/Disagree?) I like the idea of homosexuals being repressed heterosexuals. I see that becoming a South Park episode.(reply to this comment)

From AndyH Friday, August 10, 2007, 07:58 (Agree/Disagree?) IMHO = In my humble opinion(reply to this comment)

From thatata Saturday, August 11, 2007, 02:23 (Agree/Disagree?) Whats"brb"?(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Saturday, August 11, 2007, 04:36 (Agree/Disagree?) If someone says it while you're chatting with them, it means "Be Right Back"(reply to this comment)

From thatata Saturday, August 11, 2007, 05:21 (Agree/Disagree?) Thanx,by the way what do u make of all of this?Im talking about this kind of way of interpretating the world.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Saturday, August 11, 2007, 05:54 (Agree/Disagree?) Are you asking me what I think about the discussions going on on this thread?(reply to this comment)

From thatata Saturday, August 11, 2007, 05:58 (Agree/Disagree?) Im sure you know what I mean(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Saturday, August 11, 2007, 19:41 (Agree/Disagree?) I also tried the Buffalo Blue Kettle Chips. Didn't really care for them. I would love to see the Sweet Chili and Sour Cream Kettle chips from Lay's back on the shelves, but I'm afraid those were a limited time thing. Well, I'm not an agnostic, but upon leaving The Family I did go through a short agnostic phrase. I think that's normal. The Family gave me this screwed up, warped idea of God as this mean tyrant that is sitting in the sky waiting for people to mess up so he can punish them. Who would want to serve a God like that, even if he is on your side? I had to throw out what I had been taught and find God for myself, and I found him in The Bible. There's nothing wrong eating healthy, or avoiding television, or acknowledging that the US really is the greatest, most powerful nation on Earth and appears to be making fair progress considering all the difficulties in Iraq. And I do believe there is an afterlife. I hope so. People like Adolf Hitler, Timothy McVeigh, David Berg, and Slobadan Milochevic should not be able to get off scott free just because they're dead. I think Helton's idea of the afterlife has been influenced by her time in The Family. This life was meant to be lived to the fullest. One who chooses a life of service should do it because it makes them happy, not because they are expecting some kind of great reward in Heaven. That was the idea we were taught in The Family. While it's not my place to judge Heleton's motives, I think Fragiletiger could be onto something. What Heleton considers a crutch, I consider to be a being that helps me through life, gave me a conscience so that I could know right from wrong, and loves me. Of course I can't prove that, but no one can disprove it either. I consider Jesus to man who died to take the punishment for my sin. I think Heleton's idea that religious people are living to their own detriment is more likely based on her bias against religion, than it is on any statistics or facts. I admit that it is possible that there is no Heaven, and I may end up at Wal-Mart eating deep fried corn dogs, cheddar jalapeno poppers, and hot fudge sundaes in my next life. Not too bad of an idea when you come to think of it. As far as Buddhism and Zen is concerned, you'll have to talk to someone who is familiar with them. I am not. As far as Helton's idea about who Jesus was, she is entitled to her opinion, and I am entitled to mine. I agree with her on some, I disagree with her on other things. I believe that Jesus came to explain the Judaic law, and show how it was supposed to be done, and finally fulffill it with her death on the cross. I see something wrong with Helton saying that one of her life's goals is to help as many people as possible break away from religion. And what if she's wrong? I don't see what religion has to do with race. Mia is right, devoting your life, or even too much of your energy on something so trivial can be like starting your own cult. (reply to this comment)

From fragiletiger Monday, August 13, 2007, 01:48 (Agree/Disagree?) I find it intresting that the verson of God that you ascribe to the family, is the same one they acuse your church of pedeling. Also what is the criteria for being the 'greatest, most powerful nation on Earth'? Health systems? education levels? Crime rates? Poverty line? Are you using revenge as a selling point for and afterlife? and finally, don't take my name in vain, and its not capitalized.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Monday, August 13, 2007, 06:29 (Agree/Disagree?) *interesting *accuse *an afterlife I also find it quite interesting that people accuse my church of peddling the same God they learned about in The Family. I think there is a vast difference between the two. The mean, vindictive, hateful God that The Family drove into our heads was a means of control. Don't leave The Family, or God won't be happy with you. Make sure you send us 10% of your home income (because we're running low on sherry), you wouldn't want God to be mad at you. All a means of control. My comment that the USA is the greatest, most powerful nation on Earth was said in a humorous and sarcastic tone. But I do think it's better than believing that the US is a big bully. I was not trying to sell the idea of an afterlife to anyone. That would be ridiculous, because I cannot prove that there is an afterlife. I will hereby refrain from capitalizing your name, frag. (reply to this comment)

From !!! Thursday, August 16, 2007, 01:01 (Agree/Disagree?) OMG I just realised Samuel is actually 27 yrs old. I never bothered looking up the profile and had just assumed from the comments posted that he was 16 or thereabouts. Now I am more puzzled than ever!(reply to this comment)

From neez Thursday, August 16, 2007, 01:53 (Agree/Disagree?) That's probably the least of his problems.(reply to this comment)

From exfamily Sunday, August 12, 2007, 08:36 (Agree/Disagree?) "Of course I can't prove that, but no one can disprove it either." You can't disprove Zeus or Russell's teapot either. The burden of proof lies with the one who makes the positive claim. "I admit that it is possible that there is no Heaven, and I may end up at Wal-Mart eating deep fried corn dogs, cheddar jalapeno poppers, and hot fudge sundaes in my next life." Or, that you might end up in Tartarus because you failed to recognize and worship the correct deity. Or simply rot. "I believe that Jesus came to explain the Judaic law, and show how it was supposed to be done, and finally fulffill it with her death on the cross." You are, I hope, aware that according to Christian orthodoxy, Jesus is generally considered to have been male? "And I do believe there is an afterlife. I hope so. People like Adolf Hitler, Timothy McVeigh, David Berg, and Slobadan Milochevic should not be able to get off scott free just because they're dead." A sense of justice doesn't determine what happens.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Sunday, August 12, 2007, 16:21 (Agree/Disagree?) You did not apply the correct context to what I said. I'm hoping this was a mistake, and you're not just a blithering idiot. The entire text can be seen below, please pay attention this time. " What Heleton considers a crutch, I consider to be a being that helps me through life, gave me a conscience so that I could know right from wrong, and loves me. Of course I can't prove that, but no one can disprove it either. " Now, where is the positive claim? Do you see it, because I sure don't! Sorry, but if you intend to win this one it is going to take more intellect than simply quoting something you read in Richard Dawkins' book. By the way, there have been criticisms of it. You can decide for yourself whether they are worthy of being considered or not. http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/RoemerGodDelusion.php http://www.bede.org.uk/goddelusion.htm http://solutions.synearth.net/2006/10/20 http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/The_Dawkins_Delusion.aspx?ArticleID=50&PageID=47&RefPageID=11 http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=25135 Yes, I believe Jesus was male, that was a typo. (reply to this comment)

From exfamily Sunday, August 12, 2007, 22:47 (Agree/Disagree?) The positive claim is the following: "...I consider [it/him] to be a being that helps me through life, gave me a conscience so that I could know right from wrong, and loves me. Of course I can't prove that, but no one can disprove it either." You are claiming that such a being exists, that it gave you a "conscience", and that it loves you. Those are all known as "positive claims". I wouldn't have commented on it, but for the "no one can disprove it either" part. Things simply don't work like that, and I thought I should point it out. As for criticisms of Dawkins' book, I fail to see any relevance. I didn't mention Dawkins, so you may as well have linked to sites criticizing Moby Dick. While Dawkins is brilliant in his own right, I feel he comes across as a bit simplistic, or at least his books pander to the simpler mind. If I occasionally use the same arguments as Dawkins, that is by pure coincidence - we must simply think the same way on those subjects. Also, the arguments that Dawkins uses have by no means originated from Dawkins himself (what I mean is, while he may have thought them up for himself, it's not like they weren't around before). They've been around longer, as long as man has been able to reason for himself. (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Monday, August 13, 2007, 05:40 (Agree/Disagree?) I thought you'd get it I was subtle, but apparently I have to spell it out for you. Note the language I used. If I had said "God is a being that helps me through life, gave me a conscience, and loves me", I would have been making a positive statement. I did not say that, I said I CONSIDER him to be a being that helps me through life, gave me a conscience, and loves me. I used the word on purpose, because I am fully aware of the fact that I cannot prove the existence of God. If I could prove his existence, I would not have used the word consider. Get it now?(reply to this comment)

From sar Sunday, August 12, 2007, 08:51 (Agree/Disagree?) Looks like someone's recently read The God Delusion.(reply to this comment)

From rainy Sunday, August 12, 2007, 13:30 (Agree/Disagree?) I'm reading it at the moment, and am just dying to find a book group to discuss it with me page by page. Anyone interested?(reply to this comment)

From vix Sunday, August 12, 2007, 14:11 (Agree/Disagree?) Sure, sign me up. Though I've moved on to God is not Great, and The end of Faith, now. But The God Delusion is always worth revisiting, IMO. (reply to this comment)

From vix Sunday, August 12, 2007, 15:46 (Agree/Disagree?) Eh, better scratch that. I think I probably engage in quite enough thinking, theorising and discussion about things that have little or no relevance to my reality, without consciously volunteering for it. Glad you're enjoying it, though, it's great for sparking some internal debate, isn't it. (reply to this comment)

From exfamily Sunday, August 12, 2007, 09:41 (Agree/Disagree?) I've read it, but long ago. Fortunately, my ideas have originated largely from within myself, by my own intellect and reasoning; books merely expand them.(reply to this comment)

From vix Sunday, August 12, 2007, 14:12 (Agree/Disagree?) Isn't that the general process for everyone? (reply to this comment)

From exfamily Sunday, August 12, 2007, 22:29 (Agree/Disagree?) By which I meant to imply, to the poster I replied to, that what I say has nothing to do with Dawkins, regardless of whether we use similar arguments.(reply to this comment)

From Falcon Sunday, August 12, 2007, 02:15 (Agree/Disagree?) Christians seem to use the phrase "finding God"/"found God"/"find God" a lot. Is God lost?(reply to this comment)

From fragiletiger Monday, August 13, 2007, 01:37 (Agree/Disagree?) Good afternoon shoppers, we have a lost diety here.....(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Sunday, August 12, 2007, 04:51 (Agree/Disagree?) I wouldn't say God is lost. I just got really screwed up ideas about God in The Family, and had to find out on my own who he is. The Family didn't help me any there, I had to do my own studying. He's not this God that turns his back on people because they decide to leave his favorite organization/cult. He doesn't hate people, as much as Fred Phelps may like to convince us otherwise. And I think it can safely by said there is much more opportunity to do good outside The Family then inside. (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Saturday, August 11, 2007, 20:34 (Agree/Disagree?) Heres'e the rest.... More people have been killed in wars over ideology than over religion. I don't agree with atheist evangelism, if that is what Helton is doing. It would be a bit hypocritical for an atheist evangelist to then go and critize religion for their own evangelism. As far as her not seeing anything good coming out of religious beliefs, she doesn't have to look far. Did you know that I'm allowed to say whatever I want about just about anyone? In order for someone to be able to hold me liable, they would have to prove malice, which can be very difficult. Especially if I have a very good lawyer. What stops me from spreading dirty rumors about people is not the laws against slander, but a commandment in The Bible that says "Thou shalt not bear false witness." That weighs on my conscience, and keeps me on the right path. Did you know that adultery is not illegal? It may be grounds for divorce, but that's only if the spouse gets caught. What keeps Christians from committing adultery is an commandment against it in The Bible. So there is some good coming out of religious beliefs. And religious beliefs are often what motivates people to give to charity, or drill wells in the third world, or volunteer their time. I don't think Bush necessarily took a strong moral stance against gay marriage, I think it was more of a political stance. And as far as Helton's father is concerned, apparently it worked. If you really want to get into what The Bible does and does not say regarding gay marriage, we can do that at a later time or through e-mail. IMO, ignorance is rejecting an idea simply because it does not agree with your preconcieved notion. People are not ignorant, they do things that are ignorant. The person that almost caused you an accident this morning because they ran a red light might be a bank manager. He has a Harvard degree, four very smart kids, but on this particular morning he did something really ignorant. Donald Rumsfeld was not ignorant, but in my opinion his decision not to place more soldiers in Iraq to begin with was. People do need to be educated, but not by zealots for a particular cause or denomination. I'd like to see what Helton considers to be "real information". If you can get someone thinking for themselves, that is a great thing. But bear in mind that many people of all religions already think for themselves. They don't just listen to what their leaders say, they check it out and see if it makes sense to them. That's what I've learned to do. Talking down to people, telling them that they are ignorant and they believe in a lie ( when you have nothing to prove it ) is only going to turn free thinking people off. And if she does manage to convert someone to her brand of atheism, chances are that person did not think for themselves to begin with, and just decided to try something new. Maybe they're better off with Helton, maybe not. Helton, all I'm going to say is just make sure you have your life together and know who you are and what you want out of it before you go on a campaign to tell other people what life is all about.(reply to this comment)

From thatata Sunday, August 12, 2007, 01:56 (Agree/Disagree?) I also thought it was a little funny that at first he would,or it seems he was,bashing at rebellion as well hardcore atheism-but later shows an absolute missionary ferver at indoctrinating people away from religion.Theres strains of an Evangelist spirit here,funny.I think he even says"Im religiously anti-religious"or something to that effect. Agnosticism is not anykind of extremism though.You could be an extremist as well as agnostic,but agnostcism itself is not extremist.To me its honesty.Do we really know?If not why should we grab at a "cruch",I know you would disagree,and you tell me that you went through an"agnostic phrase"I know you mean phase,but I imagine this was more like despondent confusion,untill you were "saved" by Jesus.And how so? You say"more people have been killed in wars over ideology then over religion"-Religion is an ideology.Religion and ideology have both caused wars ;as well as mabye more important interests.I wouldnt say"Religion has caused most wars"though,I think thats an atheist cliche,it sounds boring and it is pretty stupid.But thats what you always hear the" smart "people say.Anyways...I think heleton(a male person by the way),will come over to set you"right"or something along that line. By the way what is this about gay marriage?I would love to hear the authority of The Bible ,on this subject,some others might too.Enlighten us! (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Sunday, August 12, 2007, 19:42 (Agree/Disagree?) Thatata, I would be happy to talk to you about this issue and show you my sources, but can you e-mail me? I really don't think it is appropriate to discuss theology in debt on this site. A lot of people just want to be left alone to beleive what they want, and there is nothing wrong with that. You can e-mail at SammyHg@aol.com Thanks.(reply to this comment)

From thatata Monday, August 13, 2007, 01:28 (Agree/Disagree?) All debate is appropriate.But I wouldnt want you to send me a theological argument over email,that would be like preaching.Its a little like being sent Jahovah witnesses tracks,unwanted. What interested me is that awhile ago it seems reading something that fragiletiger posted made you think.But what did it make you think?And how did it make you think?(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Monday, August 13, 2007, 06:12 (Agree/Disagree?) Well then, I'll try to be short. First of all, no preacher, church, or denomination has a Monopoly when it comes to interpretation of scripture. Ask a conservative Christian what the Bible says about homosexuality and they will likely lead you to Genesis 19, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. However, there is debate between conservative and more liberal theologians regarding what crimes the men of Sodom and Gomorrah were guilty of, and the Bible does not make it clear. In short, liberal theologians and gay Christians claim that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because their men gang raped foreigners that came to the city for sport. This is consistent with the outcry God talks about in Genesis 18:21 that has reached his ears. IMO, that verse doesn't make sense if the people were simply homosexuals. Some liberal theologians say that Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 refer to sexual practices that were used in idol worship. The context in those chapters appears to lend credibility to that reading. Deuteronomy 23:17, as translated in the NIV, says " No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute." Nothing about homosexuality. The word used in the Hebrew is "qadesh" (Hebrew 6945 if you have a Strong's Concordance), which means " a sacred person, ie a devotee (by prostitution) to licentious idolatry ". The same word (Hebrew 6945) is used in 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12, and 22:46. Frag makes me think quite often, so I would have to have a little more information as to which of Frag's comments you are talking about before I can tell you what I thought of it. (reply to this comment)

From thatata Monday, August 13, 2007, 09:32 (Agree/Disagree?) You, know I have a feeling, If you keep on talking you'll mistakingly join the "ranks" of the agnostics. Like for example,you merely consider Gods existence yet honestly you have no proof-I think you said something like that. I also imagine this Church you go to can be something of a "party", fun, fun, fun! (not for me, but I imagine it can be) I realize you do do a bit of thinking, Christian thinking but thinking nevertheless(mabye less), anyways you might enjoy Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling, he was a Christian philosopher, I havent read it, but it may be of interest to you, it deals with the story of Abraham and Isaac. Also Mere Christianity by CS lewis, he also wrote The Chronicles of Narnia, I dont agree with him but you might. "Is it all right really/ is it working..."-CRASS(a sorta band)(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Monday, August 13, 2007, 17:59 (Agree/Disagree?) I believe strongly in God's existence. I used consider to make it easier to compare my thoughts with Heleton's. While I believe strongly in God's existence, I have to be honest and admit that there is no proof of it. While many people on here may strongly believe that God does not exist, I think if they are honest with themselves they will admit they cannot prove it either. "Arrogance is the weak man's imitation of strength."(reply to this comment)

From thatata Monday, August 13, 2007, 23:02 (Agree/Disagree?) By the way The Family didn't invent the idea of a vengeful God, its all there in the "Word". Have you ever thought perhaps the Bible is not infallible, merely mans interpretation of what he thinks is the mind of "God"? By the way; was that last quotation for me? LOL(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Tuesday, August 14, 2007, 05:16 (Agree/Disagree?) LOL, No, it was not. You're one the least arrogant poeople on this site. I just thought saw it on a billboard the other day and thought it was a good quote.(reply to this comment)

From fragiletiger Monday, August 13, 2007, 01:35 (Agree/Disagree?) I made someone think??? Maybe there is a God... (reply to this comment)

From smashingrrl Sunday, August 12, 2007, 20:30 (Agree/Disagree?) why? scared I'll see it if you post it here?(reply to this comment)

From AndyH Sunday, August 12, 2007, 22:08 (Agree/Disagree?) He's politely offering to end the preaching and you're challenging him to continue? (reply to this comment)

From smashingrrl Tuesday, August 14, 2007, 18:59 (Agree/Disagree?) Yeah, point taken. (reply to this comment)

From Samuel Sunday, August 12, 2007, 21:16 (Agree/Disagree?) Of course not, Smash. I just don't like to annoy people by getting into big theological issues on the site. If you wish, I can e-mail it to you also. You know I have no ill feelings toward you, drop me an e-mail sometime.(reply to this comment)

From rainy Sunday, August 12, 2007, 02:32 (Agree/Disagree?) Are you 2nd gen ex-fam, Thatata? You don't seem to be, to me.(reply to this comment)

From thatata Sunday, August 12, 2007, 02:41 (Agree/Disagree?) I sure am.Im probally even younger then you.But I wont give out personal information out in a post,there is even a member of this site who may have took care of me as a kid,who I wont mention because maybe thats private,not that I care too much but... (reply to this comment)

From thatata Sunday, August 12, 2007, 02:41 (Agree/Disagree?) I sure am.Im probally even younger then you.But I wont give out personal information out in a post,there is even a member of this site who may have took care of me as a kid,who I wont mention because maybe thats private,not that I care too much but... (reply to this comment)

From AndyH Saturday, August 11, 2007, 22:45 (Agree/Disagree?) He's a man, why don't you check a profile before assuming he's a woman. Also, the only thing more tired than the anti-Christian party line, is the Christian party line. So cram it, won't you?(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Sunday, August 12, 2007, 04:40 (Agree/Disagree?) My apologies to Heleton, all I read in his profile was the phrase "Warehouse Bitch". Kinda confused me.(reply to this comment)

From Tossing pebbles Wednesday, August 15, 2007, 17:15 (Agree/Disagree?) So "Bitch" = "Woman"? Typical Christian thinking, hard at work.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Wednesday, August 15, 2007, 17:58 (Agree/Disagree?) I can't help it if you don't have a dictionary available. bitch (noun)- 1. a female canine animal,especially a dog. 2. Offensive: a. a woman considered to be spiteful or overbearing. b. a woman considered to be lewd. 3. Slang: A complaint 4. something very unpleasant or difficult. (reply to this comment)

From thatata Saturday, August 11, 2007, 05:02 (Agree/Disagree?) oh(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Saturday, August 11, 2007, 04:12 (Agree/Disagree?) It's a standard web acronym - try Googling it.(reply to this comment)

From thatata Friday, August 10, 2007, 08:00 (Agree/Disagree?) oh good.(reply to this comment)

From thatata Friday, August 10, 2007, 07:56 (Agree/Disagree?) Hey I meant Im not sure what IMHO means.(reply to this comment)

From smashingrrl Thursday, August 09, 2007, 13:27 (Agree/Disagree?) I don't wanna see str8 stuff. Or actually gay stuff. Unless they're hot. Then I really don't care who's doing what to who. Hot is hot. (reply to this comment)

From nix Thursday, August 09, 2007, 13:41 (Agree/Disagree?) Nothing wrong with hot chicks and hot dudes.(reply to this comment)

from neez Thursday, August 09, 2007 - 05:10 (Agree/Disagree?) Go to bed. (reply to this comment)