i was deleted as the cobe after i let my adult child move back home and he admitted that he fornicated under my roof while my wife and i where away on a rbc project.
of course the elder mode in me kicked him out of the house.. the elders moved quickly to remove me because i was too involved in "theocractic activities", i had neglected my adult son.. i accepted this primarily because i didn't want to serve with a boe that did not want me.
i was devastated however because it was the only life i knew.
When someone invites me over and want me to bring a 6 pack of beer and a dozen wings, I going to bring a 12 pack and 2 dozen wings!
You have a standing invitation to my place. Let me know when you want to come. I'll make the arrangements so it works for both of us.
sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".
"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?
you're fired!"..
But as nice as all of that sounds, we have one planet, and we are better as a species if we are tolerant of others. I also wish that there were no government controls on anything, but I'm smart enough to know that we can't live in a world like that.
Although it is a nice theory, and I wished we could all practice it, in reality it is immature to think that we can all get along, play nice and build a better world without rules and laws.
Very well stated!
At the end of the day our universe is a very violent place where fairness is a human construct that hopefully will yield a furtherance of the specie, but it may not. In the meantime fairness is something most humans look to as virtuous hence necessary. But what is fair from one person's perspective is unfair from another person's perspective; hence the need for rules, which means government. It's an ugly way to muddle through, but for now it's what we've got.
sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".
"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?
you're fired!"..
JD, fortunately I really don't care what people who don't know me in the slightest decide to pretend they know. I do, however, find that behavior a curious combination of lack of knowledge and arrogance.
Yet you are willing to tell people what they think despite the fact they've told you in explicit terms what you say is not what they think. You do this based on restating someone's position and then plying that restatement to mean something different than the original author said. It does not matter to you that an author took time to correct your misconstructed paraphrase. You just keep truckin along as though your restated proposition is true no matter what. That you don't care becomes fairly obvious, which is why when I said you're loaded with anger I added that you're also probably loaded with yourself. You demonstrate lack of knowledge, and you demonstrate the very arrogance you complain of. When someone comments on this they're not speaking of something they know not the slightest about but, rather, what they see unfolding in front of their eyes.
You seem to be a bright person. Why do you do these things, and then complain as you do above apparently without realizing you've just described yourself?
the following article, is one of the best efforts to defend one of the most absurd doctrines of the watchtower society:.
http://www.truetheology.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=172.
may be the writer was inspired in freddy's thoughts.
The fact is that the Watchtower leaders need always to impose a scandalous doctrine. And as Gruss said , the blood ban was intended to convince the membership they were being "persecuted" and "suffering for righteousness sake," a sure sign they were "in the truth."
This fits the model of "strictness" depicted by authors Stark and Iannaccone in their 1997 article Why the Jehovah's Witnesses Grow so Rapidly: a Theoretical Application, published in Journal of Contemporary Religion (1997). In their presentation Watchtower's blood taboo is pointed out as one instance of this phenomena.
sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".
"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?
you're fired!"..
Yes, you were bickering over your own quote. Very weird. No idea why you would do that and then attempt to blame me for that.
Either you're incredibly dense or in a state of denial. This dispute of record was you using broad terms to restate something I said in narrower terms. It's not a "bickering over your own words" to point out that someone has substantively altered a proposition.
I look forward to your updated question.
You've already answered my question for what it asked. Thank you.
I am incredibly confused as to why you would think I would bother with anger on you.
I haven't said you've bothered with anger on me. I've said you're loaded with anger. There's a difference.
sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".
"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?
you're fired!"..
It's not bickering to say "the question doesn't make sense, it needs to be made clear", it's the only way discussion on equal footing can continue.Viviane,
Above, when you finally made some attempt at a responsible reply to the question I posed to you, you complained that it was too vague because it asked whether the thing in question was "fine". Rightly you finally pointed out this needed to be narrowed so you would know whether it, for example, inquired of fine legally or fine morally, or perhaps something else. When my question was initially asked to you a concern of your responses in this discussion was you plying general terms when restating things said to you. In my case the concern was you suggesting I thought this or that was "OK" or "fine" when what I asserted was much narrower. I had not said this or that was "OK" or "fine" I had said this or that was OK legally or legal. Big difference. When I would point this out you'd respond with something akin to retort. You did this over and over again. That is bickering.
I am curious as to why you think I'm angry in any way.In this discussion you've demonstrated instances of refusing to take people for what they say in their own words and instead take them as you've restated them with your words. In my case you did this in response to my answer to a broad statement you made of me. You stated of me "So you think as long as there is no law against discriminating against women it's fine" to which I replied "No." You responded saying "BS. You said if it was legal it should be fine." In fact I had said no such a thing. I had said--as you later acknowledged--that if something is legal it's legal. I had not said if something is legal it is fine. Big difference. This kind of responsive behavior typically comes from someone carrying a lot of anger, which is why I said you're loaded with anger. Calm down. I'm not an enemy.
recent events and book reads (one suggested by cofty i believe- thank you) have lead me to the only logical and acceptable conclusion:.
there is no god.. simple logical reasoning: matter can neither me created or destroyed.
so the amount of mass in the universe is constant.
Marvin - Theists make extravagant claims about their god. We can prove they are all wrong.
It is nothing at all like the relationship between you and the bugs in your colon.
I have not suggested one is similar to the other. What I said was to address broad statements asserting logical operations.
sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".
"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?
you're fired!"..
It is. I used you to prove it. That should definitely tell you something. I suspect it's not, but it should.
All I've seen you use me for is a person to vent on. You're loaded with anger, and you're loaded with yourself. You bicker over nothing.
I'm not your enemy. I'm not trying to trap you. I'm just trying to have a conversation about a current and correlated topics. But having a conversation takes two, each of which is willing to answer relevant questions.
sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".
"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?
you're fired!"..
First, as far as I know, nothing called "Miss White America" exists. If it does, provide me a link and I'll look at it and see what it is and then form an opinion since obviously, it's 100% stupid to form an opinion on something that doesn't exist or, if it does, I don't know anything about or, if it is something you are using as an example, you've failed to explain what it is or provide details I could use to form an opinion.Something like it exists. See: Miss Black USA
Second, do you mean fine as in legal? Fine as in moral? Again, none of those things can be answered without without knowing more about the thing you are talking about. Is is a business? A private organization with membership dues? Does the name mean that ONLY white people can be involved? Is it limited to people named White? Is it like the Odd Fellows group that also allows women, meaning the name doesn't reflect what their membership policy is?1. Legal and moral.
Thirds, courts get involved when someone brings a lawsuit or charges or is seeking redress. Which of these things are you asking about? Courts don't just "get involved" on their own. Ask you asking if I think it should be illegal? Should law enforcement and then courts should get involved? That someone should sue them? That the courts should break tradition and get involved?That is part of my question to you. In the case of a Miss White USA pageant should, in your view, anyone get the courts involved to resolve anything related to discriminatory behavior (since that is at issue in this discussion).
You are asking me to make a ton of assumptions about what you mean, what type of organization you are talking about, how they operate, etc. That's why it's a question that I am refusing to answer. You've given me nothing to work with without trying to read your mind. It doesn't make sense, asking someone to assume details.Without changing the question asked, make assumptions you feel necessary in order to answer what's been asked. If you need more clarification please feel free to inquire.
sickening to see the photo of the religious zealots all stood around the governor signing into law the right for people to discriminate against others (gay, lesbian, trans-gender) based purely on religious dogma.. if religious people want those freedoms then the can't have it both ways - they cannot complain if *they* are discriminated against.. "sorry, we don't like zionists, get out".
"oh, it's some special mass and you can't work your shift?
you're fired!"..
In any event, even without out, you've been told many times all you have to do is ask what is wrong with the question if you want to know. Until you DO ask, there is no burden on me.Wow. That's telling!
Logic 101: A burden of proof rests on whoever makes an assertion to prove that assertion true.
What this means: This burden does not shift because someone else does not ask you a question.
