Messages From Marilyn Burge
101 - 120 of 3,324

The Case for Jesus
So you're Catholic and he's Protestant. Big deal. The count is still 66, as the original poster has now agreed to. Yes, and the stories are mutually exclusive. (For the word-impaired, that means they cannot all be true, because there are things in one that make a claim in another impossible.) Most of the people who post here are skeptics/atheists/agnostics/ nonbelievers have read the Bible many, many times. Cover-to-cover. Most have been very active Christians at one time or another.

he And you're 2,000 years removed from reality. How can you be so sure you're I have a pretty firm grip on reality, yes. I'll admit that without any sense of shame at all.

And that's the whole point, Mickey. A nonbeliever tried to teach you something about charitable behavior, and you ignored it. So long as it doesn't come from a believer, there's no reason to think the poster has a grip on ethical behavior. You're the one with his mind slammed shut, obviously, and the fact that you don't even remember me pointing out your cloddishness to you only clerly demonstrates it. I remember distinctly telling you Gwenny was reverting, and further

They all resort to kind sooner or later, don't they? On the other hand, lawyers are just one step up on the food chain from used car salesmen.

The problem with that is, we've had one degree of sentience or another for some two million years or so. The length of time that Jehovah has been around is a mere 6,000 years. We don't know how long the other religions before that lasted, but it could well have been a hundred-thousand years, judging from the length of time we're talking about. So what's a mere 6,000 years compared to the other two million that went unrecorded? Yup. That's

Yup. Wish I could remember which country. All I do remember is my sense of revulsion when I saw the picture(s) of it. A real obscenity!

Also, he tends to be much too trusting when it comes to story-telling.

Precisely. And taking that option away from somebody who truly can't make it because some use it frivolously is giving the State too damned much power. Only we know how much we can bear without breaking, and nobody else. Well, I was never faced with that decision, but if the guy that held that gun to my head when I was in my late teens or early twenties had wanted to screw me instead of getting a blowjob, I very

I doubt if he reads much of anything that has my name attached to it. The only posts I get from him are ones telling me how "wrong" I am in my perspective regarding the meaning of the Bible. He has zero respect for my opinion. He proved that when it took him a year to acknowledge that I'd "corrected" him for the way he treated Gwen Todd, and, even then, he only admitted it begrudgingly, and without apology. Not

No, there is no right to privacy explicitly mentioned in the USC. Actually, the SC went all the way out on a limb to the word "penumbra" in order to justify the right to choose. It was their contention that privacy rested in the "penumbra" under which the gov't could not search or seize your goods without due process, which they did a stretch and defined as "privacy." Roe v. Wade is an interesting case to read sometime. Nowhere in

Homosexual Christians
Fundies don't come; they don't even allow themselves to breathe hard.

Ryan, It really isn't that difficult, so long as you make up your mind to do what you want to do, and allow your wife to do what she wants to do. I've never understood these couples that always do everything together, like they were joined at the hip or something. Where is it written that just because my husband wants to go to a movie, I have to want to go to one, too and the SAME one

Bible Follies
No. But if you'll look at the top of the document, you'll see the names of many conservative groups that are signatories. The Seventh-day Adventists, for example, are hardly a bunch of liberals. They believe in a literal 7-day creation and a literal Flood. I don't think you can get much more conservative than THAT.

I didn't say they were in business to create jobs. I said they had an obligation to their employees and stockholders, which they do. I know why businesses are in business. I haven't worked with economists for the past 15 years without THAT rubbing off on me, fer chris'sake! I told under what conditions it can be evil. Needing surgery in and of itself isn't evil; it can be classified as an "act of god." But, then again, the original

religion in schools
Humanism isn't a religion. Period.

You're going fundy on me. <grin> At the molecular level, maybe there is no difference, but at the purely practical level, there is a HUGE difference. That's why we have two different words fer 'em. Or are you trying to tell me something, Sweetie? Maybe you've figured out that Jesus DID walk on water; that God turned the water into ice so He could. In the Middle East, that WOULD be a miracle, especially on a "sea," which is heavily

I know this level of logic is a bit much for Maria, but there is another thing wrong with her "reasoning." If the Great Flood destroyed everything and everybody except for a handful of humans in one place and a pair of each animal, how did all these different flood myths come about? It seems to me that if the flood were an actual event, we'd have just ONE flood myth, because EVERYBODY with a memory of the flood would

They damned sure don't heed the advice of non-Christians!

I already posted something to Smartass Leipzig on this topic, but I'll more or less reconstruct it here, just for you. On the molecular level, you may be correct about ice and water, but on the practical level, there is a difference, or we wouldn't have two words that everybody perceives as not synonymous. Unless, of course, you're trying to tell me that you've been converted, and God turned the highly saline sea into ice so Jesus could walk on

Why are you so sure that his musician persona is any more real than any of his other personae? Beware of fundies bearing multiple personalities. <grin>