Messages From Marilyn Burge
441 - 460 of 3,324

[1/3] ALLEGORY 1/2
My take on Michael's attitude is that, if he were completely hones wrt this issue, he'd say they are already lost becaue they can't belive the impossible is possible. I dont' think it is all that many Episcopaleans, Lynda. Remember: the people who got this trial going had to go to a nursing home and get the "signature" os a retired bishop in the late stages of Alzheimers in order to even bring the case forward this far. It doesn't

[2/2] [1/2] ALLEGORY
But my point is that if he had one ounce of sensitivity, he'd've seen that his unwillingness to give another point of view breathing room was inappropriate BEFORE it got so far that somebody had to twit him in order to function in their everyday life. I've made no secret of my mood disorder. I gave him ample opportunity to see what he was doing and back off. But, noooooo! He was much more intent on being "right" than he

Broaden your horizons a bit. The Buddhists don't believe in the supernatural (they are atheists), yet, I doubt if anybody could say they aren't religious. Religion is, at its base, about our ATTITUDE the filters through which we view the world. Only secondarily is it about a supernatural.

That isn't a term that I use, but it seems to me that those who do use it are referring to people who see every word in the Bible as literal fact, then make one or two exceptions. It's as if they are saying "Genesis is allegory (or myth), but everything after that the writers got right. To those whom the term applies, it's as if there were some kind of a switch that got pulled, and once that switch

No, boring because they were old, hackneyed tales even before the Christians made claim to them. About as exciting as watching paint dry, once you've explored the various other mythologies and realize how...UNORIGINAL...(that's the word I'm looking for) the claim is. At least they could have come up with a new gimmick. No, the REAL reason you take them more seriously than you do the other is simply that you WANT to.

Right. So DO IT, and we can put the topic to rest.

Why? He didn't twit Lynda, either, and she shows pretty much the same ballsiness as I do. He LIKE jousting with ballsey women; he just doesn't like ballsey women. No misjudgment about it. I said, for the first time in well over 40 years, that there was a believer that I could identify with and agree with on some issues. He said that Marilyn Burge is closed-minded. I said that there was a believer that I could identify with

What the HELL is a pizza with nothing on it? A slice of BREAD!

For your info...
Forwarded here by Marilyn Burge (1:105/40.666) Area: HOLYSMOKE Date: 16 Apr 96 07:21:01 Public From: Lynda Bustilloz To: Marilyn Burge Subject: labels 1/2 Lynda and Marilyn were killing time yakking about labels 1/2: I Stop, Marilyn. You *have* to allow me to form my own impressions about Michael and allow me to adjust them according to what I see just as he has to allow me to form my own impressions of, for example, Spong,

labels 1/2
if I just forwarded this post to him in its entirety. I could care less what he believes or disbelieves about my thought processes, but I know damned good and well when I see a lie, and I've seen several in the past few days from Michael. The answer to your question is, yes, I've changed my mind about a few things, but I have also not ragged on anybody for seeing things differently than I do like Michael (the

I simply can't stand his brand of dishonesty. He'll say whatever gets him off the hook at the moment, then turn his back on those very words in nothing flat (if doing so seems to have momentary advantage in that new moment). Fer instance, when the abortion battle was raging in here, I pointed out to him the insurmountable practical problems with the "only in cases of rape or incest" approach to the problem. I went into detail about how

He can bypass my twit filter anytime he wants to, simply by sending me e-mail with his name misspelled. If he isn't swift enough to know that, I can understand why he has lied so many times without any apparent notice that he did.

That's hardly the same thing. There is a million data points to debunk creationism; there are NO data points to verify miracles as literal truth. Given that, you're comparing apples and Kenworths. A person can believe just about anything they choose where religion is concerned, and the only counter to those beliefs is that they are outside of orthodoxy. In the case of Spong's conjectures, you can't even say that, with a moral certainty. Too many people agree with him

No, there is ample evidence that either the coin has heads on both sides, or it is somehow weighted such that it will always come up heads. You are imbuing the coin itself with something that is probably a product of outside interference of some sort. THIS makes it BETTER!!?? I surely don't see HOW! So you are saying that one semi-human "suffering" temporary death is a greater thing than millions suffering permanent death. Interesting perspective, but not one that

You can't possibly know that, since I have judiciously avoided revealing WHAT my philosophy is in this environment. You know that I think that Spong has a more believable take on the interpretation of scripture than the average Christian does, and you know that I respect the Humanist Creed. Other than that, you don't have a clue (and even those are only clues, since saying "that guy has a point" or "this I can admire" is hardly admitting to espousal).

If some idiot leaves a gun where his minor children can get ahold of it and they blow themselves away, the idiot's foolishness won't be passed on to future generations, whether that foolishness has a genetic component, or is merely a matter of poor rearing, which people tend to pass on generation after generation, also. As for the Seven-11 clerk, I see your point. But that is fixable without in any way banning firearms. All we have to do is

Only a VERY small beginning. He regrets doing it because it "came at a bad time" in her life. Otherwise, he would feel it was open seaon on here, just like it is on Spong. He gripes about the fact that he can't respond directly to me, yet he said Spong ought to resign his bishopric without a moment's hesitation. Is Spong here to defend HIMSELF? Has Mike apologized to Spong? Hell no! I'd bet the farm he hasn't. More

Whistling past the graveyard. "In a recent article, however, Carsten Thiede, a German papyrologist, has proposed that the Magdalen gragments may be dated to the mid-first century (1995). His theory is based on the observation that these fragments were written in uncial script (upright, block letters, a practice that was generally abandoned during the course of the first century. In order to make his case, Thiede has argued: (1) that the script is similar to some Greek texts from Pompey

Actually, I ascribe it to a very human tendency to make nonhuman things into human things, so they can better understand them. It is hard to relate to the thoughts of a domestic cat, for example, but it is much easier if you carry on two-way conversations with your housepet, taking both sides of the "conversation" yourself. I know few cat-lovers who don't do that.

There was a sort of tidal movement to things. People thrived until they reached a certain point, then their numbers would be dwindled by some predator or micro-organism, then the population would climb once again. It is much the same rhythm you see among wildlife when it is left alone in the here and now. Europeans disrupted that rhythm by introducing the tribes to a more urban culture, taking away many of their traditions in the process. They sent the