Robert Smith must be bisexual
wa
must be bisexual.
Jackie
Anyway... Of COURSE he's bisexual... EVERYONE is bisexual... Do you think
people fit neatly into two categories, either 100% heterosexual, or 100%
homosexual?! Of course not...
By the way you pose the statement though... I'm thinking you mean it to be
derogatory?! I don't know how sexuality could ever be negative or
positive... but... evidence has shown me that those boys sure like to hug
and kiss a lot! - That can't be a bad thing!
So yeah... I'm done now
Jackie
"wa" <rss...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d6Yub.11296$Wy4....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
PrettyGirlonLI
>From: "wa" rss...@yahoo.com
>Date: 11/20/03 12:15 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <d6Yub.11296$Wy4....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>
>
>I know Robert is married to a woman and all that but He and his band members
>must be bisexual.
Why do you say that?
James Russell
what its worth) said it was obviously they were all druggies, and the tract marks
should be obvious.
I love people that don't understand goth.
wa
that they are not straight.
"PrettyGirlonLI" <prettyg...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031120023343...@mb-m17.aol.com...
Default User
> ... EVERYONE is bisexual... Do you think
> people fit neatly into two categories, either 100% heterosexual, or 100%
> homosexual?! Of course not...
I forsee much disagreement with that statement in your future...
having said that - you are absolutely correct
Default User
> When I played Trilogy in the US this guy I was hanging out with (Christian for
> what its worth) said it was obviously they were all druggies, and the tract marks
> should be obvious.
>
> I love people that don't understand goth.
if he was implying they had "tract" marks, shouldn't he have pleased,
having mistaken them for fellow christians? ;)
I love people that don't understand the cure aren't goth
Victim of Voodoo
someone because of their sexuality is pretty shallow. grow up.
"wa" <rss...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:xq_ub.11412$Wy4....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
MheAd
"wa" <rss...@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:d6Yub.11296$Wy4....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> I know Robert is married to a woman and all that but He and his band
members
> must be bisexual.
I never tought about it. But so what if he is?
If you ask me, I don't think so. If there is a Cure-member with bisexual
tendencies, then I would say is Porl.
MheAd
> I love people that don't understand the cure aren't goth
And I just HATE when people don't understand The Cure aren't goth.
Didier A. Depireux
> I know Robert is married to a woman and all that but He and his band members
> must be bisexual.
Anybody who sings "Man inside my mouth" with lyrics like
"So I was sweating
I was sweating like a fat lady would...
And I woke up
With a man inside my mouth
(This won't hurt at all... )"
has to be!
Didier
--
Didier A Depireux ddep...@umaryland.edu did...@isr.umd.edu
685 W.Baltimore Str http://neurobiology.umaryland.edu/depireux.htm
Anatomy and Neurobiology Phone: 410-706-1272 (off)
University of Maryland -1273 (lab)
Baltimore MD 21201 USA Fax: 1-410-706-2512
Default User
>>I know Robert is married to a woman and all that but He and his band members
>>must be bisexual.
>
>
> Anybody who sings "Man inside my mouth" with lyrics like
> "So I was sweating
> I was sweating like a fat lady would...
> And I woke up
> With a man inside my mouth
> (This won't hurt at all... )"
> has to be!
regarding your assertion that by singing those lyrics bob must be bi:
using your own argument, I'd say that there is just as much, if not
more, evidence to support the theory that robert smith is a fat lady
I hereby enter into evidence: the promotional video entitled "never enough"
seriously, the only way to really know is to ask bob himself
I like the cure if he is or isn't, the same with all the other members
past and present (and future?)
it doesn't make a whole lotta difference either way, but it is sometimes
interesting to ponder the personal lives of the famous, I grant you that
but how much does it really affect anyone in this newsgroup?
I'm not sure how much of a chance *I* have with him - but maybe some of
you out there feel like you do...?
XXX
"Jackie" <one-imagi...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:fqYub.438071$pl3.210261@pd7tw3no...
> Wow... "He"?! He's like godlike or something... The KING of bisexuality!
>
> Anyway... Of COURSE he's bisexual... EVERYONE is bisexual... Do you think
> people fit neatly into two categories, either 100% heterosexual, or 100%
> homosexual?! Of course not...
>
> By the way you pose the statement though... I'm thinking you mean it to be
> derogatory?! I don't know how sexuality could ever be negative or
> positive... but... evidence has shown me that those boys sure like to hug
> and kiss a lot! - That can't be a bad thing!
>
Of course it was derogatory. It was just a poor attempt at starting an
argument.
Regular readers will know that is my job and I do it well enough without the
need for a poor copy.
XXX
"MheAd" <cos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Yv4vb.4079$%W3.20129@amstwist00...
XXX
Default User
>>Anyway... Of COURSE he's bisexual... EVERYONE is bisexual... Do you think
>>people fit neatly into two categories, either 100% heterosexual, or 100%
>>homosexual?! Of course not...
>>
>
> I must be the exception then, I'm the most heterosexual person I know.
standard response of a closet case :)
Jackie
"XXX" <napo...@wowmail.com> wrote in message
news:bpj6go$fdd$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "Jackie" <one-imagi...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:fqYub.438071$pl3.210261@pd7tw3no...
> > Wow... "He"?! He's like godlike or something... The KING of bisexuality!
> >
> > Anyway... Of COURSE he's bisexual... EVERYONE is bisexual... Do you
think
> > people fit neatly into two categories, either 100% heterosexual, or 100%
> > homosexual?! Of course not...
> >
> I must be the exception then, I'm the most heterosexual person I know.
No, I don't think so... You may be over 90% heterosexual... but you're still
not 100%... most gay people find the idea of being with someone of the
opposite sex ABSOLUTELY REVOLTING... but I still don't know anyone that I
would classify as heterosexual or homosexual...
I have no desire to be with another woman: I never have, and I doubt I will
ever do it... but, I still don't consider myself heterosexual...
I guess it's a point of view most people don't share...
Jackie
What?! The cure was most obviously a little gawth band at one point... You
can't say that Faith and Pornography weren't goth albums... they were... I
can't see any debate on that... The fact that they did a 180 and started
with the "let's go to bed" cure sound doesn't change the fact that for those
two years (at least) they were goth...
I don't care what anyone says!
And the fact that they don't admit it just makes them MORE goth!
Heehee!
Jackie
Jackie
Are you serious?! "Just look at him"?!
Just look at what? The fact that he's married, the fact that he's actually
HAPPILY married to the same woman since '89?!
Oh, no, I get what you mean... it's the fact that he chooses to decorate his
body in a way that is stereotypically female... gotcha... there's got to be
a correlation between that and wanting to have sex with other men...
"wa" <rss...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:xq_ub.11412$Wy4....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Jackie
affects you...
Why do you think that is?!
"wa" <rss...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:xq_ub.11412$Wy4....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Jackie
news:r78vb.83$Fo...@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
> Didier A. Depireux wrote:
>
> >>I know Robert is married to a woman and all that but He and his band
members
> >>must be bisexual.
> >
> >
> > Anybody who sings "Man inside my mouth" with lyrics like
> > "So I was sweating
> > I was sweating like a fat lady would...
> > And I woke up
> > With a man inside my mouth
> > (This won't hurt at all... )"
> > has to be!
>
>
> regarding your assertion that by singing those lyrics bob must be bi:
>
> using your own argument, I'd say that there is just as much, if not
> more, evidence to support the theory that robert smith is a fat lady
Holy crap... that was seriously funny!... He's probably also "pregnant
again"... Poor fat bisexual pregant bob...
Jackie
> Jackie wrote:
>
> > ... EVERYONE is bisexual... Do you think
> > people fit neatly into two categories, either 100% heterosexual, or 100%
> > homosexual?! Of course not...
>
> I forsee much disagreement with that statement in your future...
You forsee correctly... I think people just NEEEEED to have concrete
categories... so they can classify things as good or bad... How else can you
explain the appeal of the bible and christianity!? - I'm such a trouble
maker!
But really, it doesn't make sense to me that this is even an ISSUE
anymore... like my man Moz said... "people are simply sexual, the prefix is
immaterial"...
> having said that - you are absolutely correct
Damn straight... or bi! (yes, I'm lame!)
Jackie
Default User
>>>... EVERYONE is bisexual... Do you think
>>>people fit neatly into two categories, either 100% heterosexual, or 100%
>>>homosexual?! Of course not...
>>
>>I forsee much disagreement with that statement in your future...
>
>
> You forsee correctly... I think people just NEEEEED to have concrete
> categories... so they can classify things as good or bad... How else can you
> explain the appeal of the bible and christianity!? - I'm such a trouble
> maker!
>
> But really, it doesn't make sense to me that this is even an ISSUE
> anymore... like my man Moz said... "people are simply sexual, the prefix is
> immaterial"...
>
>
>>having said that - you are absolutely correct
>
>
> Damn straight... or bi! (yes, I'm lame!)
>
unfortunately, the prefix IS material for many, generally motivated by
ignorance, fear, and/or jealousy
for example, in the states there is still a huge debate over the
perceived legality of so-called "gay" marriages - as if anybody but the
two people who want to get hitched should have any say about it at all!
personally, I can't imagine why anyone would WANT to get married in the
first place, but how does two dudes or two chicks tying the knot affect
anybody else?
hmmmm I kinda veered this off even further than I intended, so I won't
even touch the christianity tip you laid out (out of respect for the
altar boys)
Default User
> ... He's probably also "pregnant
> again"... Poor fat bisexual pregant bob...
oh yeah! I forgot about that line!
see, now that makes me think, what about "icing sugar"?
(practically the whole song, but specifically "...I'll empty you, as
empty as a boy can be..." - is he speaking to a male, or telling a
female he will empty[!] them as if they were a male? - or do I have the
completely wrong idea about the lyrics entirely, and if so, what the
hell IS that song about??)
Default User
> I don't care what anyone says!
>
> And the fact that they don't admit it just makes them MORE goth!
>
> Heehee!
ah yes, once more it's the old "in the closet" method!!
mentioned elsewhere in this thread, but proved true again, right here!
PrettyGirlonLI
>From: Default User n...@way.org
>Date: 11/21/03 12:55 AM Eastern
>see, now that makes me think, what about "icing sugar"?
>
>(practically the whole song, but specifically "...I'll empty you, as
>empty as a boy can be..." - is he speaking to a male, or telling a
>female he will empty[!] them as if they were a male? - or do I have the
>completely wrong idea about the lyrics entirely, and if so, what the
>hell IS that song about??)
Perhaps he was addressing his, um, member? :)
PrettyGirlonLI
>
>I have no desire to be with another woman: I never have, and I doubt I will
>ever do it... but, I still don't consider myself heterosexual...
You don't like guys either?
Default User
>>see, now that makes me think, what about "icing sugar"?
>>
>>(practically the whole song, but specifically "...I'll empty you, as
>>empty as a boy can be..." - is he speaking to a male, or telling a
>>female he will empty[!] them as if they were a male? - or do I have the
>>completely wrong idea about the lyrics entirely, and if so, what the
>>hell IS that song about??)
>
>
> Perhaps he was addressing his, um, member? :)
in other words, he is speaking to a male, namely, himself
OK - I can see that
James Russell
are to be sterotyped and such, then they fall quite 'neatly' into goth
much more than anything else.
Either way, I kinda don't care I guess.
And I don't mean to sound so reductionist on it. whoops.
James
Vicky =^,,^= cat
> Didier A. Depireux wrote:
> seriously, the only way to really know is to ask bob himself
>
Yeah right! To obtain a reliable answer, let's ask a pathological liar...
;-)
xx Victoria
PS. So, if he were bisexual, does it mean that the ladies interested could
have a chance of a bed tumble with Rob *and* Simon???!! Wohooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Default User
>>seriously, the only way to really know is to ask bob himself
>>
>
> Yeah right! To obtain a reliable answer, let's ask a pathological liar...
> ;-)
he certainly has that reputation, but I can think of only two
consistently told lies from him: the status of his solo album and
whether or not the latest album is the final one
can anyone think of other lies bob has told?
XXX
still
> not 100%... most gay people find the idea of being with someone of the
> opposite sex ABSOLUTELY REVOLTING... but I still don't know anyone that I
> would classify as heterosexual or homosexual...
>
> I have no desire to be with another woman: I never have, and I doubt I
will
> ever do it... but, I still don't consider myself heterosexual...
>
> I guess it's a point of view most people don't share...
i can agree with you on that last point, i don't share it with you.
XXX
facts.
XXX
">
> ah yes, once more it's the old "in the closet" method!!
>
> mentioned elsewhere in this thread, but proved true again, right here!
>
please change the tape, we've played this track to death.
Default User
>>>I must be the exception then, I'm the most heterosexual person I know.
>>
>>
>>standard response of a closet case :)
>>
>>
>
> happy for you to say whatever you wish as your opinion doesn't change the
> facts.
>
you're right, the facts are no matter what someone claims their
preferences are, it is the standard closeted response
and usually the ones who insist on stating over and over how "straight"
they are turn out to be the gayest
on these points I agree with you
Default User
ah yes - it was a little moment of pseudo deja vu, this time about the
goth closet instead of the homo closet
seemingly in your case they are both the same closet
you're certainly free to turn around, head back in, and close the door
if you're tired of the tape :)
Sinatra
XXX
where do you get that from?
hopefully not from inside your little head but a reliable source instead.
XXX
>
> ah yes - it was a little moment of pseudo deja vu, this time about the
> goth closet instead of the homo closet
>
you have quite a collection of closets in your little world, why is that?
> seemingly in your case they are both the same closet
interesting, so according to you then are all goths are gay or are all gays
goth?
no need to answer, i am not interested either way.
Jackie
Yes, I do... but that wasn't my point at all *sigh*
I was just saying that just because I've never found myself attracted to a
woman, or desiring to do anything sexual with a woman, but I have with men
does NOT make me heterosexual... I am just more on the heterosexual side of
the scale than other people are.
Jackie
> Jackie wrote:
>
> >>>... EVERYONE is bisexual... Do you think
> >>>people fit neatly into two categories, either 100% heterosexual, or
100%
> >>>homosexual?! Of course not...
> >>
> >>I forsee much disagreement with that statement in your future...
> >
> >
> > You forsee correctly... I think people just NEEEEED to have concrete
> > categories... so they can classify things as good or bad... How else can
you
> > explain the appeal of the bible and christianity!? - I'm such a trouble
> > maker!
> >
> > But really, it doesn't make sense to me that this is even an ISSUE
> > anymore... like my man Moz said... "people are simply sexual, the prefix
is
> > immaterial"...
> >
> >
> >>having said that - you are absolutely correct
> >
> >
> > Damn straight... or bi! (yes, I'm lame!)
> >
>
>
> unfortunately, the prefix IS material for many, generally motivated by
> ignorance, fear, and/or jealousy
Yeah, true dat... but, it's awfully silly to be worried about who someone
else is fucking or loving and fucking... whatever...
> for example, in the states there is still a huge debate over the
> perceived legality of so-called "gay" marriages - as if anybody but the
> two people who want to get hitched should have any say about it at all!
There's actually a pretty big debate in Canada still... Well, in Ontario, I
think it's allowed now... but in Alberta, the government as decided that
they will "place every obstacle they can in the way of getting this law
approved"... Man, how lame does your life have to be that you are going to
try so hard to stop two people who are in love from declaring their love to
the world... I can't see how it would bug anyone!
> personally, I can't imagine why anyone would WANT to get married in the
> first place,
HA! Me too... There are easier and less expensive ways to make yourself
miserable!
but how does two dudes or two chicks tying the knot affect
> anybody else?
Well... I think the major argument is that the definition of marriage that
some guy came up with a few hundred years ago, was based around raising
children... Well... that's the xtian definition anyway... So, since two men
or two women are biologically incapable of producing children, they
shouldn't be allowed to get MARRIED... they can do something similar and
call it something different (I say it should be called SUPERMARRIAGE to piss
off the xtian church!)... but, they can't call it marriage...
The fact that infertile couples (or couples who choose not to have children)
are allowed to get married kinda makes me wonder though...
> hmmmm I kinda veered this off even further than I intended, so I won't
> even touch the christianity tip you laid out (out of respect for the
> altar boys)
My feelings on christianity are that if you are going to choose to worship a
fictitious character then I am allowed to make fun of you, just like I would
make fun of someone who worships unicorns or the tooth fairy... same thing
Jackie
XXX
"> > >I have no desire to be with another woman: I never have, and I doubt I
> will
> > >ever do it... but, I still don't consider myself heterosexual...
> >
> > You don't like guys either?
>
> Yes, I do... but that wasn't my point at all *sigh*
>
> I was just saying that just because I've never found myself attracted to a
> woman, or desiring to do anything sexual with a woman, but I have with men
> does NOT make me heterosexual... I am just more on the heterosexual side
of
> the scale than other people are.
>
>
there's a scale now?
on one side there's gay the other hetero...but one can't be 100% hetero (
and presumably not 100% gay either)
just out of curiosity in your opinion what is the maximum level a person can
get up to? ( please express as a % or how many hetero/gay marks out of 10 or
whatever)
Jackie
> >
> > Yes, I do... but that wasn't my point at all *sigh*
> >
> > I was just saying that just because I've never found myself attracted to
a
> > woman, or desiring to do anything sexual with a woman, but I have with
men
> > does NOT make me heterosexual... I am just more on the heterosexual side
> of
> > the scale than other people are.
> >
> >
>
> there's a scale now?
Ummm, if people are never either gay nor straight entirely, then there would
have to be a scale, wouldn't there?!
> on one side there's gay the other hetero...but one can't be 100% hetero (
> and presumably not 100% gay either)
I don't believe people can be... but, I have no way of being certain,
obviously...
> just out of curiosity in your opinion what is the maximum level a person
can
> get up to? ( please express as a % or how many hetero/gay marks out of 10
or
> whatever)
Well... that's a stupid thing to ask. It's like asking how bad or good (on a
scale of 1 to 10) I think a certain action is... I mean, I'm sure you'd
agree that good and bad are RELATIVE terms... right?! So I couldn't really
take something in isolation, like, let's say, killing someone, and place
this event on a scale from 1 to 10... it is simply in the middle
somewhere... I don't believe ANY action can be ENTIRELY "bad" or entirely
"good"...
I also don't believe any one human can be entirely heterosexual or
homosexual... we are simply SEXUAL... some people may perform/behave in one
way or another by choosing only partners of the same or opposite sex... but
I don't think it's impossible for these people to entertain the idea of
being with someone of the opposite or same sex, respectively...
Do you REALLY think there's only two types of people in the world?! People
who only like penises, and people who only like vaginas?! Do you maybe think
there's only 3?! People who only like vaginas, people who EQUALLY like
penises and vaginas, and people who only like penises?!
Doesn't that seem a little narrow?! I can't see the world in black and white
like that... it's entirely made up of shades of gray...
It's like saying that there are only two possible classifications for
people... either you're female, or you're male... this is a HUGE
oversimplification... there are people who are female, who are genetically
male, and vice versa... There are people who are female who believe they
were "meant" to be male, or males who believe they were meant to be
female... There are many people who aren't sure... You can't just have two
categories for everything... there are too many outliers.
But, I guess it's OK if you need things to be simple for some reason.
Jackie
Jackie
if they are, that's awfully silly) but, more on the fact that you can't
judge someone's sexuality by outward appearances, and also whether having a
classification of bisexual is superfluous...
Jackie
"Sinatra" <fr...@sinatra.com> wrote in message
news:IPuvb.3218$k4.7...@news1.nokia.com...
James Russell
j
Default User
>>>>>I must be the exception then, I'm the most heterosexual person I know.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>standard response of a closet case :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>happy for you to say whatever you wish as your opinion doesn't change
>
> the
>
>>>facts.
>>>
>>
>>
>>you're right, the facts are no matter what someone claims their
>>preferences are, it is the standard closeted response
>>
>>and usually the ones who insist on stating over and over how "straight"
>>they are turn out to be the gayest
>>
>
>
> where do you get that from?
>
> hopefully not from inside your little head but a reliable source instead.
you must be kidding me!
let's review: you say you're the "exception", because you claim you're
the most heterosexual person you know
let's see, is that a "reliable source", or from "inside your little head"?
hmmmm?
perhaps all your sexual repression makes it hard for you to understand?
Default User
>>ah yes - it was a little moment of pseudo deja vu, this time about the
>>goth closet instead of the homo closet
>>
>
>
> you have quite a collection of closets in your little world, why is that?
>
>
>
>>seemingly in your case they are both the same closet
>
>
> interesting, so according to you then are all goths are gay or are all gays
> goth?
>
> no need to answer, i am not interested either way.
I can tell by all your responses on this topic
too bad you're not as interested in reading the entire post as you are
in responding - I said that seemingly in your case they are the same closet
but no matter how you look at it, you are obviously a very repressed and
closeted individual in general
I mean, claiming you have no interest as you type and send the post?
how "closet" can you get??
(dare I ask, for fear you'll demonstrate??)
Default User
>>>But really, it doesn't make sense to me that this is even an ISSUE
>>>anymore... like my man Moz said... "people are simply sexual, the prefix
>
> is
>
>>>immaterial"...
>>
>>
>>unfortunately, the prefix IS material for many, generally motivated by
>>ignorance, fear, and/or jealousy
>
>
> Yeah, true dat... but, it's awfully silly to be worried about who someone
> else is fucking or loving and fucking... whatever...
exactly my point - this is why it makes no sense to be against "gay
marriage" or whatever you want to call it, no matter what your preference is
>>for example, in the states there is still a huge debate over the
>>perceived legality of so-called "gay" marriages - as if anybody but the
>>two people who want to get hitched should have any say about it at all!
>
>
> There's actually a pretty big debate in Canada still... Well, in Ontario, I
> think it's allowed now... but in Alberta, the government as decided that
> they will "place every obstacle they can in the way of getting this law
> approved"... Man, how lame does your life have to be that you are going to
> try so hard to stop two people who are in love from declaring their love to
> the world... I can't see how it would bug anyone!
ignorance, fear, and/or jealousy
it's like, "oh my god, I can't let someone else enjoy their life in a
way I can't let myself enjoy it - so I better keep them from doing it"
kinda like getting on someone else's case about the way they like to
listen to the "trilogy" DVD instead of watching it
"that's not the way *I* do it! that guy shouldn't be allowed! hey
buddy! wait until the CD's released, you bastard!"
but I digress
>>personally, I can't imagine why anyone would WANT to get married in the
>>first place,
>
>
> HA! Me too... There are easier and less expensive ways to make yourself
> miserable!
>
> but how does two dudes or two chicks tying the knot affect
>
>>anybody else?
>
>
> Well... I think the major argument is that the definition of marriage that
> some guy came up with a few hundred years ago, was based around raising
> children... Well... that's the xtian definition anyway... So, since two men
> or two women are biologically incapable of producing children, they
> shouldn't be allowed to get MARRIED... they can do something similar and
> call it something different (I say it should be called SUPERMARRIAGE to piss
> off the xtian church!)... but, they can't call it marriage...
>
> The fact that infertile couples (or couples who choose not to have children)
> are allowed to get married kinda makes me wonder though...
it should make you wonder - because that is what proves that the "major
argument" is complete BS
and realistically, adoption is an option for "gay" or "straight"
couples, shooting down the "major argument" from the other side
>>hmmmm I kinda veered this off even further than I intended, so I won't
>>even touch the christianity tip you laid out (out of respect for the
>>altar boys)
>
>
> My feelings on christianity are that if you are going to choose to worship a
> fictitious character then I am allowed to make fun of you, just like I would
> make fun of someone who worships unicorns or the tooth fairy... same thing
personally, I don't even take it that far, because for all I know
yaoshua ben joseph (or however you spell jesus' real name) was an actual
person, and there is some historical evidence he existed - but the truth
is no one really knows for sure
as far as I'm concerned, anyone can make up the silliest beliefs and
rules they want for their religion - as long as it doesn't apply to the
arena of civics
go ahead an burn a calf or whatever, but dont make it a law that someone
that doesn't subscribe to your religion has to burn it with you
the biggest problem with "christianity" is that it is being used as an
attempt to control but not actually being practiced
for instance, the bible says that charging interest on a loan is wrong.
period. now how many "christians" in the world either follow this
rule or support its enforcement?
and that's just one example of how the seemingly overwhelming majority
of christians have absoultely no idea what they even worship
some like to cite the bible to gay-bash, but skip over the rest of the
chapter they use as their excuse
OK, so it says there homos should be killed
what about right after that part, where it says no shaving?
or you shouldn't mix types of cattle?
or wear clothes made of more than one fabric?
or have a variety of crops on the same field?
or if you curse your parents you should be killed?
and bob help you if you're on your period, as menstrating women aren't
allowed near anything, especially the food (lest their uncleanliness
spoil it)
anyway, you get the idea - as in any control system, people follow only
the rules they want to, and instead of playing by their own rules try to
impose them on people that aren't even playing
that's what religion'll do to ya - and ironically, it all has little to
do with practically anything good ol' yaoshua (sp???) actually spoke about
Default User
> just out of curiosity in your opinion what is the maximum level a person can
> get up to? ( please express as a % or how many hetero/gay marks out of 10 or
> whatever)
here's where you misunderstand - it's not about "maximum" or "minimum" -
it's about being 100% ALIVE, baby!
only a closet case would worry about the actual % amount of how gay or
ungay someone can be
PrettyGirlonLI
>From: "Jackie" one-imagi...@shaw.ca
>
>My feelings on christianity are that if you are going to choose to worship a
>fictitious character then I am allowed to make fun of you, just like I would
>make fun of someone who worships unicorns or the tooth fairy... same thing
YOu should try to show a little bit of respect for people and their choice of
religious worship. If you have no form of religion in your life that is your
business (and might explain why your life is so free from definition
"everything is a shade of grey/no one has a true sexual preference") but you
should respect people and their religious beliefs even if you don't share them.
Making fun of someone for religious expression, in my opinion is small minded
and pathetic.
Here is just a general question--why is it that people so hell bent on being PC
in everything they say and do are completely closeminded and off the mark when
it comes to religion? Why? It's like everything is okay with you people but God
and religion, which in my opinion is ludicrus. It's like these people were
dropped on their heads as infants!
Sorry.. just had to get that off my chest
Default User
> But, I guess it's OK if you need things to be simple for some reason.
it already IS simple - the need to categorize is what makes it
complicated, by definition!
some people don't find their true love or for years - how stupid,
shortsighted, and shallow would it be to reject a soulmate simply
because you claim you're "the most hetero" person you know?
because that's where the greatest fear, ignorance, and jealously come
from - lack of love, and less to do with the sexual act, because the
actual mechanics of so-called "gay sex" are practically the same as "hetero"
Default User
> Making fun of someone for religious expression, in my opinion is small minded
> and pathetic.
I think that's a good point, and I agree
I also understand that it's difficult to deal with a person that claims
they are a certain religion, but doesn't even worship according to the
rules set forth in the religion they claim
and when that religion contains contradictory practices and teachings
(such as modern christianity), the religion itself not only devalues
every follower and invites ridicule, but makes it impossible to worship
properly
surely you can understand where a "non-believer" would find some humor
in that?
> Here is just a general question--why is it that people so hell bent on being PC
> in everything they say and do are completely closeminded and off the mark when
> it comes to religion? Why? It's like everything is okay with you people but God
> and religion, which in my opinion is ludicrus. It's like these people were
> dropped on their heads as infants!
you're wrong - people that are truly PC are not "closeminded and off the
mark when it comes to religion", by definition
in other words, someone like that isn't being PC
PrettyGirlonLI
>Date: 11/22/03 12:57 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id:
>the biggest problem with "christianity" is that it is being used as an
>attempt to control but not actually being practiced
>
Not my brand of christianity. The brand I practice, Catholicism, seeks to help
those in need and caste no judgement.
>for instance, the bible says that charging interest on a loan is wrong.
> period. now how many "christians" in the world either follow this
>rule or support its enforcement?
>
>and that's just one example of how the seemingly overwhelming majority
>of christians have absoultely no idea what they even worship
>
>some like to cite the bible to gay-bash, but skip over the rest of the
>chapter they use as their excuse
>
>OK, so it says there homos should be killed
>
>what about right after that part, where it says no shaving?
>
>or you shouldn't mix types of cattle?
>
>or wear clothes made of more than one fabric?
>
>or have a variety of crops on the same field?
>
>or if you curse your parents you should be killed?
>
>and bob help you if you're on your period, as menstrating women aren't
>allowed near anything, especially the food (lest their uncleanliness
>spoil it)
>
The above, I believe, are all drawn from the Old Testament and so if you have a
gripe with it, pick it up with the Jews. In their defense, a lot of what was in
the old testament were reflections of their culture at the time, just as
Britney Spears (God help me!) sums up the young culture of our time. Once upon
a time musicians were known for their music, where as she is known for kissing
Madonna and being a skank, but I digress. My point is, the rules you point out
are not anywhere in the catechism of the Church. There are merely a record of
the society Jesus was a member of.
>anyway, you get the idea - as in any control system, people follow only
>the rules they want to, and instead of playing by their own rules try to
>impose them on people that aren't even playing
>
religion is not a set of rules but rather something of your heart, a connection
to something bigger than yourself. Religions are a means of people to worship
as a group but it is my opinion that we are all worshipping the same being,
regardless of what we call him or her.
>that's what religion'll do to ya - and ironically, it all has little to
>do with practically anything good ol' yaoshua (sp???) actually spoke about
>
Rules, in general, are what keep a society tame. In their absense you have
chaos. If you don't believe me, spend your next summer vacation in Columbia (or
in any third world nation) and then tell me what you think about rules.
Jackie
> >Subject: Re: Robert Smith must be bisexual
> >From: "Jackie" one-imagi...@shaw.ca
>
> >
> >My feelings on christianity are that if you are going to choose to
worship a
> >fictitious character then I am allowed to make fun of you, just like I
would
> >make fun of someone who worships unicorns or the tooth fairy... same
thing
>
> YOu should try to show a little bit of respect for people and their choice
of
> religious worship.
Why?! Does it bug you that I compare the tooth fairy to god?! They both have
no basis for fact, they are both fictitious characters, so why not compare
them?!
If you have no form of religion in your life that is your
> business (and might explain why your life is so free from definition
> "everything is a shade of grey/no one has a true sexual preference")
No, I'd say "life" explains why my life is so free from definition... I
think that once you actually sit down and thing about a lot of issues you
CANNOT have two categories for everything... is murder bad?! Is abortion
bad?! Is suicide bad?!... It depends on the context, it depends on a LOT of
things... And I think that it takes a lot of thinking to get past the two
category world and realize that things aren't so easily categorized...
but you
> should respect people and their religious beliefs even if you don't share
them.
I can respect the person... I suppose... but I have NEVER met a christian
who could give me an reasonable explanation to what they believe beyond
"Well you've got to just believe it and take that leap of faith"... If you
can't even explain it, then how can you base your life around it... I can't
really respect someone's desire to not want to think for themself.
> Making fun of someone for religious expression, in my opinion is small
minded
> and pathetic.
That's your opinion, and I will let you have it!
> Here is just a general question--why is it that people so hell bent on
being PC
> in everything they say and do are completely closeminded and off the mark
when
> it comes to religion?
People are PC when it comes to religion... Can you think of any popular show
on TV where they are outright atheists, or even agnostic?!... I can't...
Why? It's like everything is okay with you people but God
> and religion, which in my opinion is ludicrus. It's like these people were
> dropped on their heads as infants!
Ummm, OK... Because people don't share the same opinion as you... they have
brain damage?!
PrettyGirlonLI
>From: "Jackie"
>Why?! Does it bug you that I compare the tooth fairy to god?! They both have
>no basis for fact, they are both fictitious characters, so why not compare
>them?!
Yes, actually it does bug me. Just as racial slurs bug me>I
>think that once you actually sit down and thing about a lot of issues you
>CANNOT have two categories for everything... is murder bad?! Is abortion
>bad?! Is suicide bad?!... It depends on the context, it depends on a LOT of
>things... And I think that it takes a lot of thinking to get past the two
>category world and realize that things aren't so easily categorized...
>
in general they aren't. on an individual basis, they most certainly ARE!
For instance, taking sexuality, XXX says he is straight (I take him at his
word) and you are (based on what you have said) straight but feel guilty about
it. Murder can be good or bad based on the context. All things can be. Sex is
generally good but in the context of rape, it isn't, and so on and so on.
>I can respect the person... I suppose... but I have NEVER met a christian
>who could give me an reasonable explanation to what they believe beyond
>"Well you've got to just believe it and take that leap of faith"... If you
>can't even explain it, then how can you base your life around it... I can't
>really respect someone's desire to not want to think for themself.
I don't see how you can connect the two things. Just because one has faith does
not mean that they can not think for themselves. Logic is not the path to faith
just as it is not the path to love either. Think of faith as the ultimate form
of love and then maybe you will understand (that is if you have ever been in
love)
>
>People are PC when it comes to religion... Can you think of any popular show
>on TV where they are outright atheists, or even agnostic?!... I can't...
I can think of many where religion never comes up and when it does it is
usually for the soul purpose of making fun of it.
>Ummm, OK... Because people don't share the same opinion as you... they have
>brain damage?!
No.... because people are inconsistant they have brain damage.
Default User
>>the biggest problem with "christianity" is that it is being used as an
>>attempt to control but not actually being practiced
>>
>
>
> Not my brand of christianity. The brand I practice, Catholicism, seeks to help
> those in need and caste no judgement.
that sounds good, and yet, the catholic church still considers the use
of birth-control to be a sin
>>for instance, the bible says that charging interest on a loan is wrong.
>> period. now how many "christians" in the world either follow this
>>rule or support its enforcement?
>>
>>and that's just one example of how the seemingly overwhelming majority
>>of christians have absoultely no idea what they even worship
>>
>>some like to cite the bible to gay-bash, but skip over the rest of the
>>chapter they use as their excuse
>>
>>OK, so it says there homos should be killed
>>
>>what about right after that part, where it says no shaving?
>>
>>or you shouldn't mix types of cattle?
>>
>>or wear clothes made of more than one fabric?
>>
>>or have a variety of crops on the same field?
>>
>>or if you curse your parents you should be killed?
>>
>>and bob help you if you're on your period, as menstrating women aren't
>>allowed near anything, especially the food (lest their uncleanliness
>>spoil it)
>>
>
>
> The above, I believe, are all drawn from the Old Testament and so if you have a
> gripe with it, pick it up with the Jews.
since when did the catholic bible only consist of the new testament?
if the catholic church wants to include it in their holy book of rules,
then the catholic church should bear responsibility for doing so
I mean, if it really considered leviticus so unimportant, why not just
leave it out? they left out plenty of other books they didn't like
(such as the gospel of thomas)
I don't necessarily have any gripe with it - but don't blame the jews
whoever came up with it, it's in there for YOU, and you choose not to
follow it
perfectly within your rights, but don't pretend that's not how it is
> In their defense, a lot of what was in
> the old testament were reflections of their culture at the time, just as
> Britney Spears (God help me!) sums up the young culture of our time.
why do they need a defense at all? if christians did what they were
supposed to do, as set forth by their own holy book, this wouldn't even
be a point of contention
but you'd like to blame this on the "old school", so let's say you rip
the entire old testament out of your bible
how well are you following the new testament? how about corinthians,
which not only specifically says you're supposed to be following moses'
law (OOPS!), but that women are not allowed to speak inside the church
if you believe in the new testament then you believe it is DISGRACEFUL
that a woman should speak in a church (its words, not mine)
and I find it hard to believe you are a stickler with this rule
hell, you just broke a commandment right there and it didn't even faze
you - maybe you're such a religious person that you probably didn't even
realize it (#3 in case you're not familiar with them)
you blame the jews for the 10 commandments I suppose
that's "old school" stuff
and even though they're supposed to be a central tenet of your religion,
that doesn't mean YOU have to follow it
at least, not if it's going to inconvenience you or anything
>>anyway, you get the idea - as in any control system, people follow only
>>the rules they want to, and instead of playing by their own rules try to
>>impose them on people that aren't even playing
>>
>
>
> religion is not a set of rules but rather something of your heart, a connection
> to something bigger than yourself.
no, that's "faith"
"religion" is the set of rules
> Rules, in general, are what keep a society tame. In their absense you have
> chaos. If you don't believe me, spend your next summer vacation in Columbia (or
> in any third world nation) and then tell me what you think about rules.
I already told you what I think about rules, which is, people follow
only the rules they want to
perhaps you've been too busy picking and choosing what's "valid" for you
in your bible (by your own admission, and proving my point about rules)
to notice that chaos exists regardless of rules?
PrettyGirlonLI
>Date: 11/22/03 1:33 AM Eastern
>I also understand that it's difficult to deal with a person that claims
>they are a certain religion, but doesn't even worship according to the
>rules set forth in the religion they claim
>
>and when that religion contains contradictory practices and teachings
>(such as modern christianity), the religion itself not only devalues
>every follower and invites ridicule, but makes it impossible to worship
>properly
>
>surely you can understand where a "non-believer" would find some humor
>in that?
>
Perhaps. But the truth of the matter is that human beings are by their very
nature fallible and that is not a just cause to dismiss organized religion. A
lot of good comes to pass daily thanks to workings of good people in all
religions (food banks, shelters, etc.) One of the biggest functions of
organized religion is to provide charity to those in need. And it is never
impossible to worship properly if you are true to your heart and keep trying no
matter how many times you fail.
Jackie
> >Subject: Re: Robert Smith must be bisexual
> >From: Default User n...@way.org
> >Date: 11/22/03 12:57 AM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id:
>
> >the biggest problem with "christianity" is that it is being used as an
> >attempt to control but not actually being practiced
> >
>
> Not my brand of christianity. The brand I practice, Catholicism, seeks to
help
> those in need and caste no judgement.
Uh huh...
I don't get this argument AT ALL... If I decided that I was going to let a
book rule my life... how could I justify basically ignoring half of it...
because it's older than the other half... Shouldn't the whole book carry the
same message?! Shouldn't it be timeless?!
> >anyway, you get the idea - as in any control system, people follow only
> >the rules they want to, and instead of playing by their own rules try to
> >impose them on people that aren't even playing
> >
>
> religion is not a set of rules but rather something of your heart, a
connection
> to something bigger than yourself. Religions are a means of people to
worship
> as a group but it is my opinion that we are all worshipping the same
being,
> regardless of what we call him or her.
That's what it is to you... but that's DEFINITELY not christianity... in
fact, if you told that to a christian priest, chances are he'd tell you
you're going straight to hell... According to Christians... there's God, and
then there's those other gods that are obviously the wrong gods to
worship... my ENTIRE family is (according to me anyway) insanely
religious... When I used to have an inkling of a feeling that god might
exist, I said that I think god might be a girl... because of mother nature,
and all of this... boy was that ever traumatic... out come the bibles, and
i'm hearing all these quotes and blah blah blah... So... I'm sure the
majority of christians would have a hard time accepting that all gods are
equal... or that they are the same or whatever... They'd probably have a
hard time with the fact that you'd refer to god as female or genderless as
well...
> >that's what religion'll do to ya - and ironically, it all has little to
> >do with practically anything good ol' yaoshua (sp???) actually spoke
about
> >
>
> Rules, in general, are what keep a society tame. In their absense you have
> chaos.
In all honestly... in their presence you have chaos as well...
If you don't believe me, spend your next summer vacation in Columbia (or
> in any third world nation) and then tell me what you think about rules.
Or, you could alternatively spend it in North America and see the same
thing.
Anyway, the bible isn't about rules, it's about fear... Until god decided to
CREATE evil (how a pure being can create something unpure is beyond me)
everything was great... But wait a sec... how can everything be great, if
there's not a fear of things being NOT great?!... It's about scaring people
into doing what you want...
For the record... I do believe that Jesus existed... and I do very much
believe that he was a great man: smart, an excelent public speaker, and
great at persuading people to follow his probably very good and pure
message... Unfortunately, there was also a bunch of other smart men, who
were a little more bitter and money hungry, and they decided to take his
message of love and acceptance and transfer it into fear and
non-acceptance... so that they could make some dough...
To the best of my knowledge there is no god... I can't say concretely that
there is or isn't, and so I'm agnostic... Again, my "lack of definitions"
has led me to this conclusion... I sat and thought about it, and decided
that I've got no proof for the existence of a god... but I've also got no
proof against the existence of a god... I mean, the theory of no god is much
more parsimonious than the theory of a god existing... but it still cannot
be disproven, and the theory that life is basically random and began
randomly/accidentaly is not exactly parsimonious either. So... I decided
that to resolve all of this, I will have to call myself undecided...
I have a question for you though... and I want you to SERIOUSLY think about
it, and SERIOUSLY answer me... If you think it's silly, then fine... just
reply and say "that's stupid" or whatever... but, I want you to at least
read it and think about it... you say that I should respect people's desire
to worship... right?!
If I told you that I worship the "lucky charms" leprechaun would you be able
to respect me?! What if I thought that his message of eating marshmallows
with your cereal was very appealing to me, and that I truly believe that he
created the earth and everything around me, and that he is my god? What if I
told you that I found some writings that I believe were written by him, or
by some of his followers and that I am now living my life according to this
message... What if I told you that when I pray and think about him enough,
he talks to me, and he tells me about the meaning of life, and about what
will happen to me when I die. Seeing as how it's not based on fact, but it
is based on a feeling (just like belief in a christian or other god is)
would you still respect it? Or would you simply laugh it off as "well,
everyone KNOWS that he can't be god"?!
I'm guessing that you would probably ship me off to the nearest looney
hospital... You can't help but think "geez... who would ever believe
that!!!!????" but... I'm sure someone out there does... but to me, it is not
a far stretch from believing in a different type of god (like the christian
one)...
Default User
> Just because one has faith does
> not mean that they can not think for themselves.
actually, that is kinda what that means
non-religious faith means not needing to think
religious faith means not willing to think
(or, as the american hertiage dictionary defines it, "trusting
acceptance of God's will")
> No.... because people are inconsistant they have brain damage.
either you don't really believe that, or you aren't really catholic
or you are stating you are brain-damaged
(I personally don't believe that you are brain-damaged, as I don't agree
that inconsistency=brain damage)
Jackie
> >Subject: Re: Robert Smith must be bisexual
> >From: "Jackie"
>
> >Why?! Does it bug you that I compare the tooth fairy to god?! They both
have
> >no basis for fact, they are both fictitious characters, so why not
compare
> >them?!
>
> Yes, actually it does bug me. Just as racial slurs bug me
Actually, racial slurs bug me too... So does sexism... so does the fact that
there are poor people out there and instead of me giving some money away to
charity, I complain that I don't have any (in all honesty, I don' thave
much, i'm a student), but I definitely have enough to pay for my high speed
internet... That bugs me way more than comparing god to the tooth fairy...
>I
> >think that once you actually sit down and thing about a lot of issues you
> >CANNOT have two categories for everything... is murder bad?! Is abortion
> >bad?! Is suicide bad?!... It depends on the context, it depends on a LOT
of
> >things... And I think that it takes a lot of thinking to get past the two
> >category world and realize that things aren't so easily categorized...
> >
> in general they aren't. on an individual basis, they most certainly ARE!
> For instance, taking sexuality, XXX says he is straight (I take him at his
> word) and you are (based on what you have said) straight but feel guilty
about
> it.
No No No! There's no guilt in it... I'm saying that if I met a girl, and I
loved her, I would not let her lack of a penis hinder our relationship.
> Murder can be good or bad based on the context. All things can be.
Yeah, that's EXACTLY my point... so I don't see why you have a problem with
it when it's projected to other things! o_0
Sex is
> generally good but in the context of rape, it isn't, and so on and so on.
Or in the context of sex before receiving a certain piece of paper, it is
bad... to some!
> >I can respect the person... I suppose... but I have NEVER met a christian
> >who could give me an reasonable explanation to what they believe beyond
> >"Well you've got to just believe it and take that leap of faith"... If
you
> >can't even explain it, then how can you base your life around it... I
can't
> >really respect someone's desire to not want to think for themself.
>
> I don't see how you can connect the two things. Just because one has faith
does
> not mean that they can not think for themselves.
You are letting a book tell you what is right and wrong... but I guess you
are technically thinking for yourself... you probably fill in lots of
blanks... or create others in places that the bible doesn't fit what you
think it should say...
Logic is not the path to faith
> just as it is not the path to love either. Think of faith as the ultimate
form
> of love and then maybe you will understand (that is if you have ever been
in
> love)
But if we are not using logic in a discussion then there is no point in
having a discussion! I could simply say well... The sky is on the ground and
potatoes are purple, so god doesn't exist...
> >
> >People are PC when it comes to religion... Can you think of any popular
show
> >on TV where they are outright atheists, or even agnostic?!... I can't...
>
> I can think of many where religion never comes up and when it does it is
> usually for the soul purpose of making fun of it.
I can think of many more where (usually american tv) where it is very
sacred... ALL daytime soap operas for example are highly religious in
nature...
> >Ummm, OK... Because people don't share the same opinion as you... they
have
> >brain damage?!
>
> No.... because people are inconsistant they have brain damage.
Inconsistant?! You haven't given me much proof (actually ANY proof at all)
that people are not PC only when it comes to religion...
Jackie
I don't think she meant that literally... I really can't be certain
though... but I think she meant that people will be PC in regards to some
things (i.e. everything but religion) and not be PC for some things (i.e.
religion)... I haven't seen any examples of this in daily life... and I
haven't been given any... but... I'm willing to listen to some evidence...
Default User
>>I also understand that it's difficult to deal with a person that claims
>>they are a certain religion, but doesn't even worship according to the
>>rules set forth in the religion they claim
>>
>>and when that religion contains contradictory practices and teachings
>>(such as modern christianity), the religion itself not only devalues
>>every follower and invites ridicule, but makes it impossible to worship
>>properly
>>
>>surely you can understand where a "non-believer" would find some humor
>>in that?
>>
>
> Perhaps. But the truth of the matter is that human beings are by their very
> nature fallible and that is not a just cause to dismiss organized religion.
actually, the fact that human beings are fallible is precisely the
reason to dismiss organized religion, as organized religion was created
by humans
unless, of course, you feel that "god" created "religion" - in which
case, you're still at a loss to explain why you aren't doing what he
says you should be doing
the very fact that you wrote word one about religion at all is against
what "god" says, if you believe that "god" "wrote" "the bible"
> A lot of good comes to pass daily thanks to workings of good people in all
> religions (food banks, shelters, etc.) One of the biggest functions of
> organized religion is to provide charity to those in need.
this is true - but this has nothing to do with religion per se
all this good is accomplished despite religion, not because of it
if religion didn't exist as a concept, I'd be willing to bet that the
majority of the people who do this now would be doing it anyway, because
it is what they want to do
Default User
> If I told you that I worship the "lucky charms" leprechaun would you be able
> to respect me?! What if I thought that his message of eating marshmallows
> with your cereal was very appealing to me
I have to say, this message of eating marshmallows with your cereal is
extremely appealing to ME!
too bad you're in bed with satan!
all the truly pious marshmallow cerealians know that the one true lord
consists of the holy trinity of frankenberry, count chocula and the holy
ghost boo-berry
REPENT NOW lest ye be deprived of milk
PrettyGirlonLI
>Actually, racial slurs bug me too... So does sexism... so does the fact that
>there are poor people out there and instead of me giving some money away to
>charity, I complain that I don't have any (in all honesty, I don' thave
>much, i'm a student), but I definitely have enough to pay for my high speed
>internet... That bugs me way more than comparing god to the tooth fairy...
>
comparing God to the tooth fairy doesn't bug you at all, which is what started
this whole thread.
>
>Yeah, that's EXACTLY my point... so I don't see why you have a problem with
>it when it's projected to other things! o_0
>
>> Murder can be good or bad based on the context. All things can be.
>
>
I am saying (and maybe what you were saying) is that things can be grey in
general but in individual cases there are absolutes. Like sexuality for many
people is an absolute (not all but I would say most have a definite preference)
And, no matter how compatiple I might be with a girl on certain levels, I am
never going to want to have sex with her (sorry guys!)
>Sex is
>> generally good but in the context of rape, it isn't, and so on and so on.
>
>Or in the context of sex before receiving a certain piece of paper, it is
>bad... to some!
Yes.. and are you going to pull those people apart too just because they might
have a belief that is different from you or I? We are all individuals entitled
to our own choices and we should respect other people's choices and beliefs
even if they are different from our own.
>You are letting a book tell you what is right and wrong...
I generally let my conscience decifer right from wrong.
>But if we are not using logic in a discussion then there is no point in
>having a discussion! I could simply say well... The sky is on the ground and
>potatoes are purple, so god doesn't exist...
>
I am not trying to prove that God exists--to you clearly he doesn't and it is
not my place (nor do I want it to be my place) to change your mind about that.
My point here is to say, please think twice before you ridicule people who are
different from you.
>ALL daytime soap operas for example are highly religious in
>nature...
OKay... this one really made me laugh.,.,.. PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS! :)
>
>Inconsistant?! You haven't given me much proof (actually ANY proof at all)
>that people are not PC only when it comes to religion...
>
My proof is you... you seem to be tolerant of everything but religion. Correct
me if I am wrong....
Default User
I'd just like to say I find it hard to reconcile the statement "The
brand I practice, Catholicism, seeks to help those in need and caste no
judgement" with "because people are inconsistant they have brain damage"
Jackie
> Jackie wrote:
>
>
> > If I told you that I worship the "lucky charms" leprechaun would you be
able
> > to respect me?! What if I thought that his message of eating
marshmallows
> > with your cereal was very appealing to me
>
>
> I have to say, this message of eating marshmallows with your cereal is
> extremely appealing to ME!
Dammit... I honestly meant this to be a thinking excersise... did you think
before you wrote that?! heehee!
> too bad you're in bed with satan!
THAT'S why it's so friggen hot in my room... I thought it was that I had the
heat so high...
> all the truly pious marshmallow cerealians know that the one true lord
> consists of the holy trinity of frankenberry, count chocula and the holy
> ghost boo-berry
>
> REPENT NOW lest ye be deprived of milk
I'm sorry frakenberry... Please forgive me... I know not what I eat for
breakfast...
Jackie
You do?!
It's clear to me!
PrettyGirlonLI
and
B) I have the flu
But.... I will try to reply to you regardless because, well, you went to all
the trouble of writing to me :)
>
>that sounds good, and yet, the catholic church still considers the use
>of birth-control to be a sin
Technically, not in all cases. This is something I don't really agree with but
the Catholic church is forever changing and I have a sense that the ruling on
birth control will one day change.
>
>since when did the catholic bible only consist of the new testament?
The Catholic Bible has both books.
>
>if the catholic church wants to include it in their holy book of rules,
>then the catholic church should bear responsibility for doing so
>
>I mean, if it really considered leviticus so unimportant, why not just
>leave it out? they left out plenty of other books they didn't like
>(such as the gospel of thomas)
>
>I don't necessarily have any gripe with it - but don't blame the jews
>
>whoever came up with it, it's in there for YOU, and you choose not to
>follow it
>
>perfectly within your rights, but don't pretend that's not how it is
>
>
>
But it is NOT how it is. The Bible was written thousands of years ago. It is a
history of how the Church began. Christianity is an offshoot of Judism. The
books of the Bible give us a background. If you want the rules of the Church
you must consult with the Catechism. (something that is updated somewhat
regularly)
>
>how well are you following the new testament? how about corinthians,
>which not only specifically says you're supposed to be following moses'
>law (OOPS!), but that women are not allowed to speak inside the church
>
>if you believe in the new testament then you believe it is DISGRACEFUL
>that a woman should speak in a church (its words, not mine)
>
>and I find it hard to believe you are a stickler with this rule
>
Again, this was the catechism at the time. I bet my life this is stated nowhere
in the Baltimore Catechism. Bare in mind the culture of the area in which the
Bible originates--the middle east. Many countries in the middle east still
treat women like shit.
>
>you blame the jews for the 10 commandments I suppose
I don't blame the Jews for anything
>
>and even though they're supposed to be a central tenet of your religion,
>that doesn't mean YOU have to follow it
>
>at least, not if it's going to inconvenience you or anything
Again I refer you to the Baltimore Catechism--therein you will find the rulings
of the modern church.
Jackie
> >
> >Actually, racial slurs bug me too... So does sexism... so does the fact
that
> >there are poor people out there and instead of me giving some money away
to
> >charity, I complain that I don't have any (in all honesty, I don' thave
> >much, i'm a student), but I definitely have enough to pay for my high
speed
> >internet... That bugs me way more than comparing god to the tooth
fairy...
> >
>
> comparing God to the tooth fairy doesn't bug you at all, which is what
started
> this whole thread.
But if you want me to accept your view... please accept mine..
> >Yeah, that's EXACTLY my point... so I don't see why you have a problem
with
> >it when it's projected to other things! o_0
> >
>
> >> Murder can be good or bad based on the context. All things can be.
> >
> >
>
> I am saying (and maybe what you were saying) is that things can be grey in
> general but in individual cases there are absolutes.
I would never say that something is ABSOLUTELY wrong or ABSOLUTELY right...
I just think too much to let myself believe that!
Like sexuality for many
> people is an absolute (not all but I would say most have a definite
preference)
> And, no matter how compatiple I might be with a girl on certain levels, I
am
> never going to want to have sex with her (sorry guys!)
You don't have to have sex to be in love...
> >Sex is
> >> generally good but in the context of rape, it isn't, and so on and so
on.
> >
> >Or in the context of sex before receiving a certain piece of paper, it is
> >bad... to some!
>
> Yes.. and are you going to pull those people apart too just because they
might
> have a belief that is different from you or I?
No... I'm just saying that everyone's got a different absolute... so instead
of having a zillion absolutes, why don't we say there are NONE, and
everything is in between!?
We are all individuals entitled
> to our own choices and we should respect other people's choices and
beliefs
> even if they are different from our own.
Calm down friend... I never said I didn't... you just assumed I would!
> >You are letting a book tell you what is right and wrong...
>
> I generally let my conscience decifer right from wrong.
Well, you let the book be your conscience then. same difference
> >But if we are not using logic in a discussion then there is no point in
> >having a discussion! I could simply say well... The sky is on the ground
and
> >potatoes are purple, so god doesn't exist...
> >
>
> I am not trying to prove that God exists--to you clearly he doesn't
Actually to me, he clearly may!
and it is
> not my place (nor do I want it to be my place) to change your mind about
that.
You can't change my mind... I'm firmly in the middle of two extremes... God
may exist... he may not!
> My point here is to say, please think twice before you ridicule people who
are
> different from you.
Well... you too then, please!
> >ALL daytime soap operas for example are highly religious in
> >nature...
>
> OKay... this one really made me laugh.,.,.. PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS! :)
I don't find it funny at all... If you watch soap operas at all, they are
typical christians... They pray to god when they are in trouble... and then
they go against what the bible says when they want to have a good time...
their christmas season starts near the end of november, and lasts well into
the new year... They go to church most sundays... etc... I can't really
think of a way in which they are not "religious" in the sense you mean it
anyway...
> >Inconsistant?! You haven't given me much proof (actually ANY proof at
all)
> >that people are not PC only when it comes to religion...
> >
>
> My proof is you... you seem to be tolerant of everything but religion.
How am I not tollerant of it?! What have I said to make you think I don't
tollerate it... Comparing one ficitional character to another?! Isn't that
my belief?! Am I not allowed to hold this belief because it is not
consistent with yours?! Does consistency have you as a basis of reference?!
Correct
> me if I am wrong....
I don't think that's possible
Default User
>>>If I told you that I worship the "lucky charms" leprechaun would you be
>
> able
>
>>>to respect me?! What if I thought that his message of eating
>
> marshmallows
>
>>>with your cereal was very appealing to me
>>
>>
>>I have to say, this message of eating marshmallows with your cereal is
>>extremely appealing to ME!
>
>
> Dammit... I honestly meant this to be a thinking excersise... did you think
> before you wrote that?! heehee!
no, it's all based on faith ;)
>>too bad you're in bed with satan!
>
>
> THAT'S why it's so friggen hot in my room... I thought it was that I had the
> heat so high...
>
>
>>all the truly pious marshmallow cerealians know that the one true lord
>>consists of the holy trinity of frankenberry, count chocula and the holy
>>ghost boo-berry
>>
>>REPENT NOW lest ye be deprived of milk
>
>
> I'm sorry frakenberry... Please forgive me... I know not what I eat for
> breakfast...
fear not, as ye may be cleansed of thy sins through pasteurization
Default User
>>I'd just like to say I find it hard to reconcile the statement "The
>>brand I practice, Catholicism, seeks to help those in need and caste no
>>judgement" with "because people are inconsistant they have brain damage"
>>
>
>
> You do?!
>
> It's clear to me!
that's the problem!
calling people that you feel are inconsistent "brain-damaged" is casting
judgement, and the act of you doing so after claiming you don't is
certainly inconsistent
ironically and concisely summing up the general problem of religion
Jackie
> A) it's very late
> and
> B) I have the flu
>
> But.... I will try to reply to you regardless because, well, you went to
all
> the trouble of writing to me :)
I went to the trouble of writing you as well... but you have yet to answer
me back... I really would like to know what your opinion is on my choice of
worship...
> >that sounds good, and yet, the catholic church still considers the use
> >of birth-control to be a sin
>
> Technically, not in all cases.
When is it not a sin?! It is murder in their eyes!
This is something I don't really agree with but
> the Catholic church is forever changing and I have a sense that the ruling
on
> birth control will one day change.
I thought you let your conscience tell you what is right and wrong... yet,
now you are letting the church?! You even are against it but you still have
to follow it... doesn't that make you sad?!
> >since when did the catholic bible only consist of the new testament?
>
> The Catholic Bible has both books.
OK then, since when did only one of the books in the catholic bible deserve
to be followed or read literally?!...
> >if the catholic church wants to include it in their holy book of rules,
> >then the catholic church should bear responsibility for doing so
> >
> >I mean, if it really considered leviticus so unimportant, why not just
> >leave it out? they left out plenty of other books they didn't like
> >(such as the gospel of thomas)
> >
> >I don't necessarily have any gripe with it - but don't blame the jews
> >
> >whoever came up with it, it's in there for YOU, and you choose not to
> >follow it
> >
> >perfectly within your rights, but don't pretend that's not how it is
> >
> >
> >
> But it is NOT how it is. The Bible was written thousands of years ago. It
is a
> history of how the Church began. Christianity is an offshoot of Judism.
The
> books of the Bible give us a background. If you want the rules of the
Church
> you must consult with the Catechism. (something that is updated somewhat
> regularly)
Or you could read the bible?!... I don't get that... the bible is just like
an instruction manual on how to NOT follow it's rules?!
> >how well are you following the new testament? how about corinthians,
> >which not only specifically says you're supposed to be following moses'
> >law (OOPS!), but that women are not allowed to speak inside the church
> >
> >if you believe in the new testament then you believe it is DISGRACEFUL
> >that a woman should speak in a church (its words, not mine)
> >
> >and I find it hard to believe you are a stickler with this rule
> >
>
> Again, this was the catechism at the time. I bet my life this is stated
nowhere
> in the Baltimore Catechism. Bare in mind the culture of the area in which
the
> Bible originates--the middle east. Many countries in the middle east still
> treat women like shit.
Kinda freaky that morals are changing with the passage of time... What if it
goes full circle and women are treated like shyte again in a few years cause
someone decided that that should have been in the rule book the whole time
anyway?!
> >you blame the jews for the 10 commandments I suppose
>
> I don't blame the Jews for anything
You said to blame the jews for the old testament.
> >and even though they're supposed to be a central tenet of your religion,
> >that doesn't mean YOU have to follow it
> >
> >at least, not if it's going to inconvenience you or anything
>
> Again I refer you to the Baltimore Catechism--therein you will find the
rulings
> of the modern church.
Ummm, didn't a PERSON write that?!... Aren't they falliable?! Why are you
following what their interpretation of what right and wrong is?!
Jackie
> Jackie wrote:
>
>
> >>I'd just like to say I find it hard to reconcile the statement "The
> >>brand I practice, Catholicism, seeks to help those in need and caste no
> >>judgement" with "because people are inconsistant they have brain damage"
> >>
> >
> >
> > You do?!
> >
> > It's clear to me!
>
>
> that's the problem!
I really hope you know I was being sarcastic!
> calling people that you feel are inconsistent "brain-damaged" is casting
> judgement, and the act of you doing so after claiming you don't is
> certainly inconsistent
I think it was more a statement of frustration though... something you might
call an angry outburst... it's also something that god thinks is punishable
by eternal damnation... go figure...
> ironically and concisely summing up the general problem of religion
You know what's funny?! You weren't even gonna "get started" on the whole
religion thing I put out there!... Remember that?! Way back when!
Jackie
> Jackie wrote:
>
> >>>If I told you that I worship the "lucky charms" leprechaun would you be
> >
> > able
> >
> >>>to respect me?! What if I thought that his message of eating
> >
> > marshmallows
> >
> >>>with your cereal was very appealing to me
> >>
> >>
> >>I have to say, this message of eating marshmallows with your cereal is
> >>extremely appealing to ME!
> >
> >
> > Dammit... I honestly meant this to be a thinking excersise... did you
think
> > before you wrote that?! heehee!
>
>
> no, it's all based on faith ;)
>
I guess there's nothing left but it!
>
> >>too bad you're in bed with satan!
> >
> >
> > THAT'S why it's so friggen hot in my room... I thought it was that I had
the
> > heat so high...
> >
> >
> >>all the truly pious marshmallow cerealians know that the one true lord
> >>consists of the holy trinity of frankenberry, count chocula and the holy
> >>ghost boo-berry
> >>
> >>REPENT NOW lest ye be deprived of milk
> >
> >
> > I'm sorry frakenberry... Please forgive me... I know not what I eat for
> > breakfast...
>
>
> fear not, as ye may be cleansed of thy sins through pasteurization
K... that was freaking funny! I actually laughed out loud at that!
PrettyGirlonLI
>I don't get this argument AT ALL... If I decided that I was going to let a
>book rule my life... how could I justify basically ignoring half of it...
>because it's older than the other half... Shouldn't the whole book carry the
>same message?! Shouldn't it be timeless?!
Some things, like cultural guidelines are not timeless. You are sticking to a
very literal interpretation of the Bible. For instance, much of Revelations was
written in code. They did it this way because at the time Catholics were being
singled out and tortured and so they worshipped in secret from fear of being
killed. But I digress. The Bible is timeless but if you are looking for the
actual rules of the modern Church you will find them in the Catechism.
>we are all worshipping the same
>being,
>> regardless of what we call him or her.
>
>That's what it is to you... but that's DEFINITELY not christianity... in
>fact, if you told that to a christian priest, chances are he'd tell you
>you're going straight to hell...
I have a very close friend who is a Catholic Priest and I can tell you for a
fact that he is respectful of everyone's religious beliefs
>my ENTIRE family is (according to me anyway) insanely
>religious... When I used to have an inkling of a feeling that god might
>exist, I said that I think god might be a girl... because of mother nature,
>and all of this... boy was that ever traumatic... out come the bibles, and
>i'm hearing all these quotes and blah blah blah...
I'm so sorry that happened to you. In truth, I'm not sure if God even has a
gender. God is a spiritual being. Christians believe that he came to Earth as a
human being in the form of his son, so that his son might save us. We also
believe that the Holy Spirit is also God, which is where the "Holy Trinity" bit
came about. We can't comprehend God in any real terms, which is why debates
like this always happen. The thing is, I think that if God could be three
seperate beings there could be room for other manifestations. I think that your
idea of God being a maternal figure was very sweet and who is to say that you
are wrong? As far as I know, the only person to see God was Moses and wasn't
that in the form of a Burning Bush?
>So... I'm sure the
>majority of christians would have a hard time accepting that all gods are
>equal... or that they are the same or whatever...
I can only speak for myself. But I do know that most people struggle with their
faith and have different comprehension levels.
>They'd probably have a
>hard time with the fact that you'd refer to god as female or genderless as
>well...
They might, but that doesn;t mean that they would be right or that there may
not be an equal amount of them who would be open to that idea.
>If you don't believe me, spend your next summer vacation in Columbia (or
>> in any third world nation) and then tell me what you think about rules.
>
>Or, you could alternatively spend it in North America and see the same
>thing.
I know of what I speak. I have relatives in Colombia. Trust me, it is really
horrible down there now.
>Anyway, the bible isn't about rules, it's about fear...
The Bible is about overcoming fear
>Until god decided to
>CREATE evil (how a pure being can create something unpure is beyond me)
God did not create evil. God allowed for free will and free will lead to the
creation of evil.
>It's about scaring people
>into doing what you want...
>
I think some people do approach religion this way, but I think they are
misguided. I certainly never did.
>
>To the best of my knowledge there is no god... I can't say concretely that
>there is or isn't, and so I'm agnostic... Again, my "lack of definitions"
>has led me to this conclusion... I sat and thought about it, and decided
>that I've got no proof for the existence of a god... but I've also got no
>proof against the existence of a god... I mean, the theory of no god is much
>more parsimonious than the theory of a god existing... but it still cannot
>be disproven, and the theory that life is basically random and began
>randomly/accidentaly is not exactly parsimonious either. So... I decided
>that to resolve all of this, I will have to call myself undecided...
>
Allow me to quote Alfred Lord Tennyson:
"There lives more faith in honest doubt, believe me, than in half the creeds."
>I have a question for you though... and I want you to SERIOUSLY think about
>it, and SERIOUSLY answer me... If you think it's silly, then fine... just
>reply and say "that's stupid" or whatever... but, I want you to at least
>read it and think about it... you say that I should respect people's desire
>to worship... right?!
>
>If I told you that I worship the "lucky charms" leprechaun would you be able
>to respect me?! What if I thought that his message of eating marshmallows
>with your cereal was very appealing to me, and that I truly believe that he
>created the earth and everything around me, and that he is my god? What if I
>told you that I found some writings that I believe were written by him, or
>by some of his followers and that I am now living my life according to this
>message... What if I told you that when I pray and think about him enough,
>he talks to me, and he tells me about the meaning of life, and about what
>will happen to me when I die. Seeing as how it's not based on fact, but it
>is based on a feeling (just like belief in a christian or other god is)
>would you still respect it? Or would you simply laugh it off as "well,
>everyone KNOWS that he can't be god"?!
>
>I'm guessing that you would probably ship me off to the nearest looney
>hospital... You can't help but think "geez... who would ever believe
>that!!!!????" but... I'm sure someone out there does... but to me, it is not
>a far stretch from believing in a different type of god (like the christian
>one)...
>
Wow... excellent question and my answer is simple, I would respect your worship
of the leprechaun. What you described is what faith is at it's core and without
all of the hard feelings--it's a simple and pure connection to God. How you
connect to God (or whatever you call him/her/it) is your business. To believe
that one's own way of reaching God is the only way is pigheaded at best. God
loves us all, regardless, no matter, and in spite of it all. This is my belief
and in my heart, I know it's true.
Incidentally, I respect your right to be agnostic and can even understand (to
an extent) how one can become agnostic. I will not argue that there is a lot of
corruption in organized religions. I think that faith brings us to religion and
ironically at times, religion seperates us from our faith.
At any rate, we should all respect eachother in these matters as we have all
had different experiences. Of course, that is just my opinion on the matter.
Incidentally... I LOVE lucky charms! :)
Default User
> A) it's very late
> and
> B) I have the flu
>
> But.... I will try to reply to you regardless because, well, you went to all
> the trouble of writing to me :)
>
>
>>that sounds good, and yet, the catholic church still considers the use
>>of birth-control to be a sin
>
>
> Technically, not in all cases. This is something I don't really agree with but
> the Catholic church is forever changing and I have a sense that the ruling on
> birth control will one day change.
once again, personal inconsistency reigns
and proving my point, that you only follow the rules you want to
new slogan: "the catholic church - it's chaos!"
but even if the church someday reversed its policy, what does this say
about religion and faith?
it USED to be a sin, but now it's not?
"god" was mistaken but finally came around?
there was no point to the rules in the first place?
religion is only useful as far as its convenience?
>>since when did the catholic bible only consist of the new testament?
>
>
> The Catholic Bible has both books.
>
>>if the catholic church wants to include it in their holy book of rules,
>>then the catholic church should bear responsibility for doing so
>>
>>I mean, if it really considered leviticus so unimportant, why not just
>>leave it out? they left out plenty of other books they didn't like
>>(such as the gospel of thomas)
>>
>>I don't necessarily have any gripe with it - but don't blame the jews
>>
>>whoever came up with it, it's in there for YOU, and you choose not to
>>follow it
>>
>>perfectly within your rights, but don't pretend that's not how it is
>>
>>
>>
>
> But it is NOT how it is. The Bible was written thousands of years ago. It is a
> history of how the Church began. Christianity is an offshoot of Judism. The
> books of the Bible give us a background. If you want the rules of the Church
> you must consult with the Catechism. (something that is updated somewhat
> regularly)
and for something supposedly so important to your religion, something
with which I'll bet you have little to no practical knowledge of, correct?
here's what I know of the CC (catholic catechism):
part 1 article 3 section 2 says that "god" "wrote" "the "bible"
so you think that you don't have to follow those old rules from
"thousands of years ago"? guess again!
the CC says: "Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic
age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old AND the New
Testaments, WHOLE AND ENTIRE, with ALL THEIR PARTS"
"canonical" means, by the way, that IT'S THE HOLY LAW
so, like I said, don't pretend that's not how it is
because that's PRECISELY how it is
honestly, how can someone professing to be catholic and attempting to
lecture someone on the CC have no seemingly practical knowledge of it
themselves?
if you're not even going to learn, much less follow, the rules in your
own religion, what is the point?
Default User
> You know what's funny?! You weren't even gonna "get started" on the whole
> religion thing I put out there!... Remember that?! Way back when!
you are absolutely right
now you know why! :)
see, here's the kicker - I was raised catholic (!)
only I did what no one in the church expects you to do - I read the books!
and once you actually start educating yourself, you see religion for
what it is - another control system, having nothing to do with literal faith
Default User
cool!
it's nice to have a piece of the thread to just be funny with, as the
rest is so heavy
(heavy for anyone that actually gives a crap about "religion" that is,
which I suspect in this NG is a pretty minimal number)
Jackie
> >Subject: Re: Robert Smith must be bisexual
> >From: "Jackie"
>
> >I don't get this argument AT ALL... If I decided that I was going to let
a
> >book rule my life... how could I justify basically ignoring half of it...
> >because it's older than the other half... Shouldn't the whole book carry
the
> >same message?! Shouldn't it be timeless?!
>
> Some things, like cultural guidelines are not timeless.
OK... but how does that relate to the bible?!
You are sticking to a
> very literal interpretation of the Bible.
It is a book of rules... why wouldn't I take it literally?!
For instance, much of Revelations was
> written in code.
Maybe it wasn't... maybe it's literal... How do you think that you are
worthy enough to decide what parts to take literally and what parts to take
figuratively?!
They did it this way because at the time Catholics were being
> singled out and tortured and so they worshipped in secret from fear of
being
> killed. But I digress. The Bible is timeless but if you are looking for
the
> actual rules of the modern Church you will find them in the Catechism.
>
> >we are all worshipping the same
> >being,
> >> regardless of what we call him or her.
> >
> >That's what it is to you... but that's DEFINITELY not christianity... in
> >fact, if you told that to a christian priest, chances are he'd tell you
> >you're going straight to hell...
>
> I have a very close friend who is a Catholic Priest and I can tell you for
a
> fact that he is respectful of everyone's religious beliefs
Oh, yeah, that wasn't my point though! My brother is quite respectful of the
idea that I am agnostic... but, I know he still thinks I'm going to hell!
> >my ENTIRE family is (according to me anyway) insanely
> >religious... When I used to have an inkling of a feeling that god might
> >exist, I said that I think god might be a girl... because of mother
nature,
> >and all of this... boy was that ever traumatic... out come the bibles,
and
> >i'm hearing all these quotes and blah blah blah...
>
> I'm so sorry that happened to you.
I'm not... it was a great big learning experience....
In truth, I'm not sure if God even has a
> gender.
If god does exist... i doubt it's got a gender...
God is a spiritual being. Christians believe that he came to Earth as a
> human being in the form of his son, so that his son might save us. We also
> believe that the Holy Spirit is also God, which is where the "Holy
Trinity" bit
> came about. We can't comprehend God in any real terms, which is why
debates
> like this always happen. The thing is, I think that if God could be three
> seperate beings there could be room for other manifestations.
I agree with you... but god isn't 3 separate beings... you're only
supposedly worshipping one god...
I think that your
> idea of God being a maternal figure was very sweet and who is to say that
you
> are wrong?
I thought it was an alright interpretation! I'm fairly certain it's wrong,
but, who knows... could be right!
> As far as I know, the only person to see God was Moses and wasn't
> that in the form of a Burning Bush?
Yeah... it's kinda weird how people got male from that... but he did talk...
so maybe he had a man's voice?!
> >So... I'm sure the
> >majority of christians would have a hard time accepting that all gods are
> >equal... or that they are the same or whatever...
>
> I can only speak for myself. But I do know that most people struggle with
their
> faith and have different comprehension levels.
>
> >They'd probably have a
> >hard time with the fact that you'd refer to god as female or genderless
as
> >well...
>
> They might, but that doesn;t mean that they would be right or that there
may
> not be an equal amount of them who would be open to that idea.
>
> >If you don't believe me, spend your next summer vacation in Columbia (or
> >> in any third world nation) and then tell me what you think about rules.
> >
> >Or, you could alternatively spend it in North America and see the same
> >thing.
>
> I know of what I speak. I have relatives in Colombia. Trust me, it is
really
> horrible down there now.
But it's horrible in America too... I mean, I guess it depends on what your
reference point is...
> >Anyway, the bible isn't about rules, it's about fear...
>
> The Bible is about overcoming fear
I really can't say I agree with that... I'm not scared of dying... until I
think about two things that happen to have been created in the bible...
1. Eternity... that's a hella long time, and I don't want to live that long.
2. Hell... I must say it's more appealing than heaven... but marginally...
> >Until god decided to
> >CREATE evil (how a pure being can create something unpure is beyond me)
>
> God did not create evil. God allowed for free will and free will lead to
the
> creation of evil.
*sigh* If you believe in something, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE read the entire
thing...
Isaiah Chapter 45 Verse 7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and CREATE EVIL: I the
LORD do all these things...
> >It's about scaring people
> >into doing what you want...
> >
>
> I think some people do approach religion this way, but I think they are
> misguided. I certainly never did.
Well, you can think they're misguided, but they've actually got the main
point of the bible and religion in general...
Hmmmm, OK, I guess I have no choice but to respect that... Whether you would
actually do this if a stranger came up to you and told you that the easter
bunny was the creater of the world is really impossible to tell... but it is
quite noble, I suppose, that you would still respect my belief...
> Incidentally, I respect your right to be agnostic and can even understand
(to
> an extent) how one can become agnostic. I will not argue that there is a
lot of
> corruption in organized religions. I think that faith brings us to
religion and
> ironically at times, religion seperates us from our faith.
I can't let my emotions tell me what to believe... they're not a valid
source of information and are very pliable... I can MAKE them be a certain
way if it is to my benefit! So I don't think I should be using them to tell
me what is right and wrong...
> At any rate, we should all respect eachother in these matters as we have
all
> had different experiences. Of course, that is just my opinion on the
matter.
>
> Incidentally... I LOVE lucky charms! :)
I hate lucky charms... Marshmallows at breakfast?! Ew! :)
Jackie
Default User
> A) it's very late
> and
> B) I have the flu
A) as far as my time zone goes, that is 100% correct
B) in all sincerity, I hope you get well soon
nite for now!
PrettyGirlonLI
>Date: 11/22/03 4:08 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <vIFvb.1732$rS5....@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>
I can't explain the point to you because you obviously don't get it. The Bible
is our sacred book, that much is true.The copy of the catechism I have is not
arranged the way yours is. I did however take a few college level theology
courses and as far as I know, God wasn't busy pounding away at some heavenly
typewriter. And while I may not be slamming the Bible in your face and
screaming "Fires of hell" at you, it gives you no right to ridicule me. For
some of us, that is not what it is all about and if that is what you think it
should be about, I can understand why you are so hateful of religion. Go have
yourself a guinness or something and try to relax.
Jackie
I really believe most people are ambivalent towards most things... kind of
not wanting to think about important things... Or thinking about it on the
surface, and not delving deeper... I suspect that's how people become
christian... It's an excape from thinking...
I mean... hearts, horseshoes and clovers and rainbows and whatever else
shapes he's got!... I don't want even the funny parts of the thread to get
heavy! Heehee!
Jackie
> Jackie wrote:
>
>
> > You know what's funny?! You weren't even gonna "get started" on the
whole
> > religion thing I put out there!... Remember that?! Way back when!
>
>
> you are absolutely right
>
> now you know why! :)
>
> see, here's the kicker - I was raised catholic (!)
I'll one up you on that... I was raised greek orthodox... Now I'm not saying
it's a cult (K, I am... it's totally a cult)... but, it's about as close as
you can get if you don't think it's actually one!
> only I did what no one in the church expects you to do - I read the books!
Yeah, same here... I also seeked answers... Egads
> and once you actually start educating yourself, you see religion for
> what it is - another control system, having nothing to do with literal
faith
Yeah... I really like: www.skepticsannotatedbible.com for that... wonderful
site... always entertaining.
lee
church is completly fucked, a bunch of child molesting cunts running about
covering up their dirty deeds, on instruction from the vatican no
less.....what a fucking joke.
FUCK 'EM!
"PrettyGirlonLI" <prettyg...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031122042533...@mb-m01.aol.com...
Default User
>>God did not create evil. God allowed for free will and free will lead to
>
> the
>
>>creation of evil.
>
>
> *sigh* If you believe in something, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE read the entire
> thing...
>
> Isaiah Chapter 45 Verse 7
> I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and CREATE EVIL: I the
> LORD do all these things...
why is it that the people that claim to be christian have the least
knowledge of the bible?
is it because once you read it, you can't believe it? (if you have any
sense)
Default User
I'm not the person who said that religious people should be ridiculed
and I'm also not the person that called incosistent people "brain damaged"
what I am doing is wondering why a seemingly otherwise intelligent
person would consider herself a worshipping member of a religion she has
little knowledge of and even less regard towards
if you feel that all the rules and regulations have nothing to do with
faith, then I would agree - that's absolutely correct
however, it's precisely those rules and regulations that make the
difference between a catholic and lutheran and mormon and methodist and
baptist etc etc etc
anybody that really has no consideration for anything other than faith,
by definition, should reject organinzed religion
Default User
thinking is hard and scary
the shallow ignorant way is the easier way
> I mean... hearts, horseshoes and clovers and rainbows and whatever else
> shapes he's got!... I don't want even the funny parts of the thread to get
> heavy! Heehee!
discuss the ecclesiastical implications of everlasting "cinnamon life"
cereal
XXX
"> Do you REALLY think there's only two types of people in the world?!
People
> who only like penises, and people who only like vaginas?! Do you maybe
think
> there's only 3?! People who only like vaginas, people who EQUALLY like
> penises and vaginas, and people who only like penises?!
no, that's why i referred to a a grading by number (possibly you would have
understood if i'd referred to shades and colours)
>
> Doesn't that seem a little narrow?! I can't see the world in black and
white
> like that... it's entirely made up of shades of gray (grey)...
>
actually my question was about the shades of grey between the two extremes.
I appreciate there are 100 shades between these two poles.
However you seem to be saying there can be nothing but shades of grey.
I disagree with that and think there is black, 100+ shades of grey and
white.
> But, I guess it's OK if you need things to be simple for some reason.
>
perhaps not simple enough for some?
> Jackie
>
>
Default User
> I disagree with that and think there is black, 100+ shades of grey and
> white.
oh, so now it's a black thing??!
Jackie
I agree... but would you rather be shallow and ignorant?! I don't think I
would... I do believe that ignorance is bliss... usually... but I don't know
if I'd be willing to "go back" knowing what I know now!
I like thinking about this kind of stuff... even though it's often not much
fun...
Jackie
I'm not sure... I think it's an interpretation/memory type of thing... Our
minds are SOOO good at making evidence that is inconsistent with our theory
somehow magically consistent... Maybe because you don't really want to
believe that god created evil, that you seriously just forget about that
passage... Maybe you decide it's not an important one... maybe you'll say
that in a different translation that probably meant that "he gave us free
will and that's how evil came about"... but, he still created us, and he
still knows EVERYTHING that is about to happen, before we do it... somehow,
somewhere someone decided that our actions are still free?!
The first time I doubted the christian god, is when I found out that he knew
EVERYTHING, and in that, when I was created, by him, let's say... he also
knew the course of my life... He knew whether I would go to heaven or hell
already... I think it's pretty cruel to give me the illusion that I can
control my own fate, when clearly I can't...
Jackie
news:bpo2sg$rh3$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> "> Do you REALLY think there's only two types of people in the world?!
> People
> > who only like penises, and people who only like vaginas?! Do you maybe
> think
> > there's only 3?! People who only like vaginas, people who EQUALLY like
> > penises and vaginas, and people who only like penises?!
>
> no, that's why i referred to a a grading by number (possibly you would
have
> understood if i'd referred to shades and colours)
Yes, I'm number blind... thank you for understanding.
> >
> > Doesn't that seem a little narrow?! I can't see the world in black and
> white
> > like that... it's entirely made up of shades of gray (grey)...
> >
>
> actually my question was about the shades of grey between the two
extremes.
>
> I appreciate there are 100 shades between these two poles.
>
> However you seem to be saying there can be nothing but shades of grey.
>
> I disagree with that and think there is black, 100+ shades of grey and
> white.
Well... that's cool! I'm not stopping you from believing this... am I?!
I think that people can BEHAVE in one extreme or another... I.e. being
"straight" or "gay" but, I still don't think that anyone is entirely
straight or gay... That is MY belief... and you don't have to believe in
it... You can continue believing that you are a 100% hetero being... and
that's fine!
paul
> > Jackie wrote:
> >
> > > ... EVERYONE is bisexual... Do you think
> > > people fit neatly into two categories, either 100% heterosexual, or 100%
> > > homosexual?! Of course not...
> >
> > I forsee much disagreement with that statement in your future...
>
> You forsee correctly... I think people just NEEEEED to have concrete
> categories... so they can classify things as good or bad... How else can you
> explain the appeal of the bible and christianity!? - I'm such a trouble
> maker!
>
> But really, it doesn't make sense to me that this is even an ISSUE
> anymore... like my man Moz said... "people are simply sexual, the prefix is
> immaterial"...
WHO CARES
>
> > having said that - you are absolutely correct
>
> Damn straight... or bi! (yes, I'm lame!)
>
> Jackie
XXX
PrettyGirlonLI
>> Doesn't that seem a little narrow?! I can't see the world in black and
>white
>> like that... it's entirely made up of shades of gray (grey)...
>>
>
>actually my question was about the shades of grey between the two extremes.
>
>I appreciate there are 100 shades between these two poles.
>
>However you seem to be saying there can be nothing but shades of grey.
>
>I disagree with that and think there is black, 100+ shades of grey and
>white.
Well put! :)
PrettyGirlonLI
>Date: 11/22/03 10:57 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <6ILvb.2382$rS5....@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>
I proudly call myself a Catholic and most likely always will. I attended
Catholic School my entire life and attended mass weekly. I know plenty about my
religion.
>
>
>if you feel that all the rules and regulations have nothing to do with
>faith, then I would agree - that's absolutely correct
>
>however, it's precisely those rules and regulations that make the
>difference between a catholic and lutheran and mormon and methodist and
>baptist etc etc etc
I have investigated the basic beliefs of the different Christian faiths and
find Roman Catholicism a good match for me. There are minute differences
between the religions. And I respect all of them. I'm simply a Catholic.
>anybody that really has no consideration for anything other than faith,
>by definition, should reject organinzed religion
I don't agree with that. A person of faith wants to share their faith. I guess
sort of like Cure fans want to converse with other Cure fans in a forum such as
this. It's because outside of another Cure fan, who the hell cares about rare
B-sides or the Trilogy release, or even if Robert Smith is bisexual. We tend to
be attracted to people like ourselvee (not in all ways, of course) but think of
your friends. You may have diversity among them but chances are you have
something crucial in common with each of them. That is why there is a need for
organized religions. I am a practicing Catholic because I like to be in the
company of people who share or can at least understand my faith. People who
understand why Catholic bashing hurts so much. People who have spent their
entire lives around priests and has never known a single one who ever did
anything to a child that was inappropriate. Yes, there are priests who abuse
children, just as there are teachers, police, parents, uncles, day care
workers, bus drivers, etc. who abuse children... but ya know what--the
percentage among priests (although unacceptable) is tiny. But to hear a person
who hasn't been to mass in 20 years (or perhaps isn't even Catholic) to hear
them speak you would swear that EVERY SINGLE priest was a child molester. Yes,
it is that sort of arrogant ignorance that pisses me off. Feel free to reject
God, it's your right but it doesn't make you better than someone that hasn't
rejected God. Just as my faith doesn't make me better than you. It is what it
is. I've said my peace. It's been real folks!
Default User
> A person of faith wants to share their faith. I guess
> sort of like Cure fans want to converse with other Cure fans in a forum such as
> this.
and I'll bet you spend a whole lot more time doing that, in addition to
watching and listening to the cure, than actually going to church
and you probably know more things about bob then the bible
by the way, I never suggested anyone "reject god", as you said
what I said was that anyone that actually read the bible would have no
choice but to reject organized religion, if they were honest and had any
sense
at any rate, one of the teachings of yaoshua ben joseph (jesus) WAS that
organized religion should be rejected
noma...@gmail.com
monkeyb...@gmail.com
kunw...@gmail.com
> Wow... "He"?! He's like godlike or something... The KING of bisexuality!
>
> Anyway... Of COURSE he's bisexual... EVERYONE is bisexual... Do you think
> homosexual?! Of course not...
>
> derogatory?! I don't know how sexuality could ever be negative or
> positive... but... evidence has shown me that those boys sure like to hug
> and kiss a lot! - That can't be a bad thing!
>
> So yeah... I'm done now
>
> Jackie
>
> "wa" <rss...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:d6Yub.11296$Wy4....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > I know Robert is married to a woman and all that but He and his band
> members
> > must be bisexual.
> >
> >
Shut up you idiot, Im not bisexua