Messages From Marilyn Burge
421 - 440 of 3,324
THE DROOL GAME
It's just you, Al. When a loud and vehement nonbeliever says
"ya know, I think this Bishop-guy has a point," a nondogmatic
believer wouldn't need a kick in the pants to see that it wasn't
the time for saying "the bishop is full of shit."
If you have to tell somebody what good manner are, they just
don't have them. No sense in deluding yourself into believing
they do, because they just don't.
ALLEGORY
That's bullshit, Al. I have nearly 60 years of first-hand
experience that all point in the direct of "dead men don't
walk." I don't have to take that on faith. I have not,
in nearly 60 years, read one single account in the newspaper
where it happened. I've read accounts where people THOUGHT
somebody was dead and they weren't, but that is a whole
different matter, of a whole different magnitude. Saying
that my asserting that is based entirely on
Tennessee Commandments
What I'm saying has nothing to do with whether 18-year-olds have
the constitutional right to vote or not. I am addressing the
validity of the argument. Nothing more. And, the argument itself
is fatally flawed, whether 18-year-olds should have the right to
vote or not.
And, furthermore, drinking age has nothing to do with voting age,
either. The only valid argument that I can see has to do with the
age that one is when one has totally accepted responsibility
A New Topic
From: debate@freethought.tamu.edu on behalf of Jftill@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 1996 4:08 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Horner Barker Debate
Last night I attended the Horner-Barker debate on the resurrection at
Northern Iowa University in Cedar Falls. The following is my impression
of
the debate.
The debate began with Horner reading essentially the same speech that he
opened with in my debate with him at Seattle-Pacific University last May.
I
saw Dan Barker turning the pages of the
labels 1/2
is
I
He's a liar. Everything he's posted points in exactly the opposite
direction. Consider: if he REALLY believed what he's posting now,
he'd've been jumping up and down with glee when I expressed a positive
interest in what Spong had to say. Also, he wouldn't have spent the
last six months trying to engage you in a debate about Spong, but
would have left you alone, secure in the conviction that even though
you two disagreed, you were both
Homeless
We were married in July of '64. We started living together in about
December of '63. By the time Louie wass born (December '66), we had
a fairly decent apartment in an old converted house. By his second
birthday, we were renting the little house. By his fourth birthday,
we had purchased the place from the landlord.
We had each other. It wasn't that much of a drag, so long as we
had that.
A FAIR & JUST GOD
about
Local laws have no jurisdiction in a Federal Post Office. They can
make any hare-brained law they want to, and the U.S. Postal
Service is still at liberty to ban any weapons in their
establishments. If the locals don't like it, they'll just have to
lump it.
GAY LOVE
out
You're missing the point. The progression in question took place
over millennia. One specific religion didn't necessarily evolve
into another, but when it did, the records are spotty enough so we
only get a glimpse of the actual evolution. The process isn't much
different from the amount of records we have of genetic evolution,
as compared with the number of steps that were actually involved
in the process from one-cell-creature to Man.
MY BOOK
Yes. That WOULD BE excessively annoying.
CULT EVALUATION FORMS
You're not thinking things through again. Are you REALLY ready to
tell us that your god only pulls rabbits out of a hat when he can
show off, rather than when the rabbit-pulling is needed?
God wasn't the one that made the fig tree grow, huh? News to me.
The squirrels had other purporses prior to Branham's shooting
them, too. All his god did was get them to hold a meeting at the
right time, in the right place. Them
ALLEGORY
Do you have any reputible authority for that claim? Everything
I've read puts John as one of the later books, LEAST likely to
have been penned by the person whose name it bears.
I can tell you one thing for sure: Mack, in _Who Wrote the New
Testament_ says in the prologue that Theide is whistling past
the graveyard on this one, and he says it is VERY scathing language
of both Theide's language, and his motives.
Inflation
This isn't the proper echo for this conversation. The word
"unemployment" makes no difference, as she used the term
"100 percent employment," which, admittedly as a totally
different connotation. I understand the difference in a
VERY intimate way. I've worked on the key economic indicators
for a living since 1980.
And, as I said at the beginning of this conversation, I was
merely trying to point out to her that if the economist in
question was saying that "100 percent
ALLEGORY [1]
Not exactly. I was spoonfed conservative apologetics some 45 years
ago. That point of view did me no good then, nor did it give those
adults around me who had the wherewithal any impetus to help me
when I needed it most. If conservative apologetics don't make a
loving person out of you, then they are a total waste of time. I
will admit to hostility toward them. It has taken me some 40 years
to even make the attempt
HELP ME
You are being too charitable. And, in this case, your charity
will only exacerbate the situation, as it will be used as an
excuse on his part to do nothing to change the way he relates
to others.
And, as for any alleged apology he may have made regarding his
reaction to my description of my sister, I remember none. If
it came after I twitted him, then it came much, much too late
to be meaningful. If a person
A FAIR & JUST GOD
Trust me on this one. If there isn't enough arable land to feed
the people, there isn't enough arable land to feed cattle for
export. It takes more land to feed enough cows to supply food
for one person than it does to directly supply vegetation for
one very healthy vegetarian diet. Poking the vegetation through
an animal, then poking the animal through a human being is the
most inefficient way imaginable to feed that human being.
So, given that,
ALLEGORY [1]
You are conveniently forgetting that I virtually never read any
fiction. Given that, why would I waste my time on a point of view
that is patently fictional in its treatment of the main character?
Conservative apologetics are FULL of assumptions that the
impossible is possible, without a shred of supporting evidence
being needed by the writer. Now, why in the WORLD would I waste my
time on that sort of nonsense? When one of those apologists
decides to offer
ALLEGORY [2]
The only thing I'm losing is the rather dubious honor of having
to put up with his abrasiveness and dishonesty.
ten
Remember our defrocked physician? They share the same
denomination, although I find my fundy friend to be MUCH more
rational, and in infinitely better control of his own destiny.
ten
Do you agree with this? THIS is the thrust of the rest of this
post. Do you agree that you weren't made by your god? Without this
portion of the argument, I agree I've seen this argument in here
many times. But, WITH this portion of the argument, I've never
seen this argument. Did your god make you?
Also, my fundy friend's argument completely ignores the Isaiah
text where god not only admits that he made evil, but out-and-out
brags
problems, troubles, woes
You're wrong, Marty. I had grounds for twitting him, or I wouldn't
have done it. As for an agenda, who doesn't have one? It goes with
breathing.
And, as for twitting people, I've twitted nobody in this echo
except the various Staal personae, the two Rice brothers, and
Michael. I twitted Staal because he simply made no sense and
twitting him cut down on the traffic I had to wade through with my
limited time. I twitted the two Rice