At the expense of inserting logic here, how would one know if he/she were offended if he/she didn't read the post?



Isn't that what most people want? And he is free to state anything that he wishes in his posts, but by the same token, others are free to dispute what he says, eh?



The question of functional vs dysfunctional was not the question! The topic is women seeking successful men. Jerry Springer is not a valid source.



I suppose this is directed at me. Defensive is a misnomer: it is more of pointing out fallacies when I see them.

As for the Triangle Factory fire, as a serious student of history, I don't need to read an article to be aware of inhumane treatment of humans. Although it is further back in time, I have extensively studied the persecution of people (mainly women) as witches, the stamping out of heretics, genocide, and slavery. I can log into Yayhoo and read about such matters.

My best friend from childhood was shot to death by her druggie boyfriend in front of their three year old daughter and another child. It marked her family for the rest of their lives. The daughter is still alive, though I haven't seen her in years; I would wager she still dreams about it.

I have not escaped unscathed by things in my life, but I move forward, not back.

I have never liked Palin; I don't mean that I don't like or agree with her political views, but from what I have seen of her, I just don't like her.

I don't dislike people for being stupid or ignorant, but I do dislike it when ignorance masquerades as intelligence and "truth."

Palin is spiteful and petty. Her exchange with a teacher in Alaska who opposed her politics showed the maturity of a seventh grade--literally! Her sotto voce comment about Michelle Obama was petty (I don't have a TV and wouldn't watch her reality show if I did, but I saw a clip online).

I think Palin's exposure in the media is becoming overexposure for her but benefits her opponents. We have really had a chance to see what type of person she is.

Let her keep talking: the more she puts her foot in her mouth, the better.



Palin is not responsible for the actions of Loughner, but she is responsible for fomenting hatred and divisiveness during a time when Americans should pull together. She is not concerned with what is truly best for the US, but what is best for Sarah Palin.

My first reply on this forum was

If that is "casting the first stone," then I suggest that the Christian replying in the caustic manner he replied review the scripture "an eye for an eye." This means that the "punishment" shouldn't be more severe than the "crime." His reply was insulting not only to me, but to women in general.

As for being observant about the actions of Christians and others, I have replied to three or four forums on this site and haven't had enough experience HERE to make a judgment on how often Christians are "attacked." However, I have been very observant in real life, and I have found many, not all, Christians to be pushy and uncaring about the rights and beliefs of others.

I have never gone door-to-door handing out religious tracts trying to get people to believe what I believe. I have never approached total strangers in restaurants to tell them the good news of Jesus Christ. I have never stood on a street corner preaching to the people passing by. I have never told my neighbor or friend that he/she should believe what I believe. I have never stopped my car in the middle of the road to tell someone working in his/her yard about Jesus. I have never told ONE person that he/she should be executed because he/she didn't believe like me. I have never stood outside a funeral home, shouting horrible things to the bereaved. I have never told a gay person that he/she should suffer for being gay. I have never advocated one religion over another. I have never tried to abridge someone's constitutional rights because he/she is of a certain faith, nor lobbied to make my belief a law of the land.

I have never had an atheist, a Buddhist, an agnostic, or a Jew judge me for my beliefs rather than who I am as a person. I have never had any of these people tell me that I should be stripped of my citizenship because of my beliefs, or that my "religion" shouldn't be protected by the US Constitution because it isn't a "real" faith.

I HAVE been in the shoes of Christians, not only when I was in a church for over a decade, but wearing other pairs of shoes as a pagan.

I can say from personal experience that prejudice and bias against me as a pagan has been much higher than than when I was a Christian. And ALL that prejudice and bias came from Christians!

In addition, the OP who slung the stones in this forum wasn't defending his religion! My original statement made NO slur on anyone's faith, eh? In fact, it didn't even mention religion! However, if one claims to be a Christian, one should abide by the tenets of Christianity, which includes walking an extra mile, turning the other cheek, and being Christlike.

Christians are usually not "martyred" for their faith, especially not in the US and even more so in these forums. They assume a sense of righteousness and anyone who disagrees is a persecutor.

Let me qualify "personal experience": that is experience you have gained from your own experience, but also the experiences of people whom you know.

It means that you are not a professional researcher who has spent years doing studies and surveys.

I could list MY experiences, but that is only what they would be: limited, but contrary to yours.




You aren't responsible for your father's sins, but dude, you have a chip on your shoulder so large that I can see it from here. You are so defensive that you go on the offensive.

When people "say things," you ALLOW, perhaps even welcome, those things to irritate your chords. No one is responsible for you how you feel but YOU.



I am not familiar with "Lowell" girls, so that means nothing to me, but I am not sure in which perspective you are trying to place "equality."



It isn't YOUR problem: it is everyone's problem.




Cry me a river: you are not the only one who can state that. At some point, we either grow up and deal with our pasts, or we continue to let the past rule us.

You seem to be in the latter segment.

I dunno, my knowledge base doesn't encompass belly button lint. Is your theory that the deeper the navel, the more lint, or vice-versa?

As with the other forum, I am finished until you find something creative and interesting. My boredom tolerance is low and was actually passed some time ago.

And I cannot abide a hypocrite, especially one who professes to be Christlike.

But Shining, this is a circular argument! Just because a person says there is a god does not make it so, eh?



It is my opinion that the vast majority of Christians are Christian because their parents, grandparents, and so on, were Christians. They rarely seriously examine their belief in the Bible or whether Jesus is truly "god." This holds true of other religions, as well.

The reason why they argue so vociferously about the historical validity of the Bible is because if it is proven to be untrue, what happens to their beliefs? Mind you, I mean fundies: there are liberal Christians who view the Bible as largely symbolic.

An atheist would call me silly, but Taoism makes more sense than does Christianity; reincarnation also makes more sense than either an eternal place of bliss or torture.

I had a student in a mythology class who had been in a very serous car accident and lost all of her memory. She had to relearn EVERYTHING. She didn't even recognize her parents. She and I were talking about myth and religion, and she said that her parents told her that she had been raised as a Christian and had attended Sunday School.

She then said that she found the idea of god "ridiculous"; she could hardly believe that once she had bought into Christian ideology.

I found that VERY interesting!

I dunno, my ex-husband had a brow ridge.

In addition, OP, you take an old, worn-out scenario and play it again. Your creativity and originality are sorely lacking.

Why not come up with a TOTALLY new, non-rhetorical question that has not been asked hundreds of times? I know that your question might seem fresh and new to you, but to those of us who are old and have been dabbling in the religious pond for some time, it is merely old hat.

In this medium, I never assume that people are trying to be sarcastic. There is no way that I can see facial expressions or hear tone of voice; therefore, unless I "know" someone, I take what they say at face value.

And while what you said might have been sarcastic, it wasn't satirical.

I have read several of your posts. You do not write in a clear, logical manner that expresses your exact intents. Knowing this, I tend even more to take what you say at face value; I am certainly not going to dig for your meaning.

I also find it interesting that while saying I wrote an ad hominem attack on you in another forum, you find it perfectly acceptable for you to actually launch ad hominem attacks on me--personally directed at me and not a larger, general group.

Your continued, personal, vitriolic statements do let me know that I have hit you hard.

Jesus would be proud of you there, boy. In fact, I bet he is sitting up in heaven, laughing his *** off. I wager he even has a scoreboard, and is keeping a tally of how many times you zing me.



I don't see in this passage where it says, "Come back at them hard, and be sure to use sarcasm and insult them." Oh, but you are human, aren't you? And humans make mistakes. (That is sarcasm.)

Abracadabra wrote:

Abracadabra, I find insults from Christians to fly quite freely in these forums, and usually, they throw the first stone. I cannot fathom how they can take the command to be "Christlike" and yet be so insulting. I suppose that they think they are chasing the money lenders from the Temple.

You are very welcome. If there is anything else about which I can set you straight, just let me know.

I live only to serve humankind and to promote manifest destiny within religious parameters.

(Um, that last part is a joke for anyone who wants to take it seriously.)

As you say, I said that "those" who don't believe in the flood are illogical: for my words to be an ad hominem "attack," I would have said, "YOU are stupid for believing in the flood."

As for me not giving evidence contrary to the flood, I wrote quite a bit about the flood myths in other posts. If you didn't bother to read them, I sure the heck am not going to take the time to go through it again.

However, the idea that a man built an ark, put every animal in existence on the boat, then the firmaments opened and it rained for 40 days, flooding the entire earth is not logical.

As someone else stated and as I stated, there is NO fossil record that such a flood ever happened. I already went into the scientific, not mythical, reasons for why there are fossils on top of mountains.

Therein speaks the man whose "interest" was not requited.



Ohhhh! That certainly qualifies you as an expert! Did you know that many people who have theology degrees get them from nonaccredited schools? The ones who go to to well-respected and accredited universities do not teach/preach in the Bible Belt.

But heck, I LIVE in the Bible Belt! I have not been impressed with any ministers whom I have met, especially the one who didn't know the meaning of the words "pagan" or "polytheistic."

Miles, your beliefs are "out there" even more than mine are.

Also, some of your posts are impossible to read and understand. For example, the one to which this one is a reply is so garbled that I can't understand what you say and what I was supposed to have said.

Sloppy writing is indicative of a sloppy, disorganized mind. But don't feel too bad about this: most people who post in these forums are the same.



Why do you assume that I don't know who wrote the Christian Scriptures and when they were written?

By the way, the Christian Scriptures were largely written in Greek by highly Hellenized Jews. The Pauline scriptures were written for a Greek audience.



I consistently seek new knowledge, but no one on these boards has said anything that I haven't heard or read elsewhere--except for those who are obviously delusional and whose ideas give me a chuckle, but whom I can't take seriously.

And you are not aware enough to know that I was pointing out your sexism.

Ya know, I can stand a lot, but I can't stand the lack of creativity and originality.

I didn't attack you; I dismissed your claim of the existence of a flood.

Yawn.

No, they aren't. This goes along with the idea that everyone has a talent or gift of something that they do well.

Not everyone does.

Even in jest, what a stupid thing to ask.

You are relying on your personal experience, which is just YOUR experience. My experience runs contrary, and my experience is just as valid as yours. I have not seen men "dragged" into being "house husbands." Even if those situations exist, men have the ability to just say "no," don't they? Or are the so *****-whipped that they can't refuse?

I have, however, seen men take on responsibilities of child rearing or taking primary care for housekeeping BECAUSE they wanted to do so. However, these men are far in the minority and, again, the main responsibility of caring for kids and the house rest on the woman.

You also introduced aspects that were not in your first post about a man slaving away to put an engine in a car and not being appreciated because he isn't making his half of the rent. If circumstances exist where a man can't get a job making decent wages, that is one thing; with the recession, it is understandable, but that wasn't overtly stated in your complaint.

Why is role reversal a *****? If that is true, then NO woman has ever been happy or fulfilled in not working outside the home. If a man doesn't feel happy or fulfilled in doing so, he should leave the marriage. Ditto for a woman who works and resents it.

I am single at present, but I am dating a man who makes ten times as much money as I do. If we live together (I can't see marrying), I will continue to work. And to your sarcastic question, I welcome the new millennium and equality. I saw my mother and too many other women of her--and my--generation suffer because of inequality.

If women want to stay home and not work, they need to marry a like-minded man: if a man thinks it is his role to work, then let him find a women who thinks the same. Both types still exist.

Simple, eh?

I think that the ability to see things from more than one angle is a type of intelligence, but it does not define "intelligent" as a whole. I do see this ability as the trait of a "deep" thinker and as a step toward wisdom.




The Japanese consider the Americans as the aggressors in WWII. Julius Caesar wrote accounts of the Celts/Druids that people accept without considering that the Celts were Caesar's enemies.

Grasshopper Okami04, you take a step toward wisdom.

A not even logical fallacy: assuming that there was a flood.