Messages From Marilyn Burge
421 - 440 of 3,324

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.

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: on behalf of 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

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.

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.

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.

Yes. That WOULD BE excessively annoying.

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

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.

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

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

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

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,

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

The only thing I'm losing is the rather dubious honor of having to put up with his abrasiveness and dishonesty.

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.

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