Vent your frustration here

Oh.
But I am not like that. I consider them the same.
Probably because of my ego, though, not anything they did. What's the difference?

I am not interested in how others see you, Mike. It's your own self-image I'm concerned with. But if it bothers you, I'll desist.

This really is my very very very very very last post.Do you think that I am really an egotistical maniac? OR - do you think it's nearly always tongue-in-cheek nonsense because it makes me laugh? (It seems only Nighttrain knows I'm gooning around).I can't help it, I have limitless energy for gooning around and it comes through. I'm worse than Peeves the poltergeist. In my house - you have to take mikey's batteries out before bedtime or he'll sit there laughing at his own jokes all night long. But I do have a serious side and I do think I'm of average intelligence so I do understand a few things.It only bothers me if you're genuinely trying to make me look stupid and feel bad. But the evidence suggests you perhaps wouldn't want to do that.If I am being overly-sensitive, perhaps it is my fault I "saw" this in your posts.Bye for now.

You see, that does not make any sense.It's like I told you before, it's not like the person being attracted to, has anything to do with it.Attraction by itself, is meaningless. Magnets attract, or repel, so what.Attraction originates from somewhere, from someone.If I like fat women, and you do not, then we are different. Whatever drives our attraction is different, not the word attraction itself.Attraction is not a noun ringo, it's a descriptive word.Even if we both liked the same person, and we were both males, our attraction is still different.

If you say so. I don't think my 'bigotry' towards immature language is quite the same thing as being offended by hearing someone's opinion of me. Heh, I think I rewrote that a few times and left a comma by accident. For the record, my comments to nator weren't really about homosexuality. I wasn't even sure that mike's were.

quote:

---

But one thing is certain, that Mike isn't just making up this information.

---

I'm just saying that his argument is biblically sound. I'm saying that he is not saying anything that came strictly from a private interpretation alone.He is stating well-known Biblical precepts. And I said that in response to nator saying that Mike is "pulling information out of his ass."

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

How can you possibly know that? You're claiming to know what another person feels.You're claiming that your feelings toward a woman are somehow "different" from a lesbian's feelings toward the same woman. I'm asking you to think about those feelings. If there really was a difference, you'd be able to tell us what the difference is.Don't just answer with the same drivel over and over again. Think.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

To tell you the truth, I don't know what to think.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

I didn't say anything about bigotry. My point was that you shouldn't "refuse to learn" from somebody just because they use bad language or offend you in any other way. Learning is your own responsibility and you shouldn't use excuses to avoid it. It doesn't matter. My point was that those who talk about "controlling yourself" or "loving the sinner but hating the sin" are focusing on the carnal. Ironically, a lot of the "sinners" are "communing spiritually" with each other and the religionists don't see it - a veritable epidemic of beam-in-the-eye disease.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Exactly. Well said. My rejoinder will correspond to your position.I just watched a movie, (perhaps you've heard of it), called, Jesus Camp., where they found vivacious group of Pentecostal's who tend to politicize Jesus. The hope for the purveyors of this "documentary" is for the viewer to come to the inevitable conclusion, that, after watching the movie, it will elucidate the point that Christians are, as you said, dumb, gullible, immoral people.The common tactic that I've seen from the media in general is to find the craziest self-confessed Christian they can in order to make all of them seem absolutely loony. To my chagrin, its worked fantastically. I just hope that a large portion of people will not immediately assimilate these images with the whole of Christendom. Certainly not. Which is precisely the argument I've been making. They stridently deride me as a bigot for simply not believing the same things they do, all the while acting bigoted against Christianity. But moreover, they further cinch their own noose by saying that morals do not exist apart from the self. Yet, they make continual moral judgments about me!The Greeks had a term for this type of ill-gotten behavior. They called it, hypocrisy.

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

You will be assimilated. Somehow it seems awfully easy to find the loonies to give us the wrong idea about Christians. Heck, in our little microcosm here at EvC we are shown examples over and over. Not all, of course, but perhaps a majority.They are the hate filled ones. They are the ones utterly unable to think in a coherent fashion. We didn't even try either. We'd love to have clear thinking, articulate, logical Christians in abundance.We'd have fun discussing that evidence for creationism that the creation scientists are proud of. We'd enjoy the intellectual challenge of being precise about how to distinguish design from designoid. However, sadly, we get R.. and R.. instead. (not to name names)

Here is what I see:Compromisers of core beliefs to where they look virtually identical to your ideology = okayAssured in their core beliefs = bad hatemongerers Since you've already named names, you might as well make a list of all the hate-filled, incoherent, inarticulate, illogical Christians @ EvC.

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt

oh, nothing in particular, i'm just a stickler for accuracy. well, you are certainly not the average male mind. of course, what we think when someone says "lesbian" is pretty far removed from the actuality.

---

IIRC upon seeing Jesus Camp that "vivacious group of Pentecostal's who tend to politicize Jesus" preached a message of hate and war. IIRC having read the Bible Jesus preached a message of love and peace. So which one of the two mutually exclusive messages is wrong about Christianity?

Both Mike and I said the same thing, and somehow, it still is being overlooked. I am saying that the measure of a Christian is not other self-proclaimed Christians-- its Christ. So if that Christian acts counter to what Jesus preached, is Christianity's message (i.e. Christ's instruction) to blame, or is that one person who misrepresented it?

---

​

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions and spends himself in a worthy course; who at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat." -Theodore Roosevelt