[Superchicken]

Originally Posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker

Are better doesn't take much. The last one was incredibly bad that he posted in the new user member directory a few weeks ago. He weighs 150 pounds and looks like christian baile in the movie "The Machinist".

For those who haven't seen it that isn't a good thing. The tailers on Apples site

But who cares, not like I will ever meet him or voluntarily look at pics of him.

not like you'll meet any of us MacNNers... you didn't even take me out to a bear bar when we were in To! You cheap jerk!

[budster101]

Now that's the spirit! Ya'll are keeping it gay.

[Superchicken]

How exactly do I keep something gay? Isn't it either gay or not... isn't it born that way... wouldn't it always be gay?

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by Superchicken

not like you'll meet any of us MacNNers... you didn't even take me out to a bear bar when we were in To! You cheap jerk!

I know a couple in person actually. Eug for one.

Sorry but I was camping with real bears when you where in T-dot.

[Warung]

Originally Posted by Superchicken

Actually my room doesn't have a closet... it's got a lil clothes bar my sister got my for Christmas... I don't think I'd fit under it...

Yeah...exactly. It's too tight in there...just grab a little dress from that clothes bar...put it on, and come out into the open. You'll feel a lot better.

Originally Posted by Superchicken

Anyway no I said Zimph looked like someone and he was like, no no no I look like this.

WH4T

Originally Posted by Superchicken

But if the thought of me and Zimph in some twisted homosexual online relationship... likely involving bath soaps and power ranger action figures gets you off...

Hey...not bad. You're getting there. Don't hold back now...tell us about your fantasies...

[budster101]

Ok, that was bitchy gay.... hate that....

[zetroe]

Originally Posted by OogaBooga

Another contributing factor is that the human brain has become so smart it can crush primitive instincts. We are so smart we can learn just about anything, and sometimes we tend to defy nature itself. In order to survive as animals (which we really are), we need to (for the most part) obey our animalistic instincts. These including eating, reproducing, staying healthy, etc.

Except that it's our "animalistic instincts" which are responsible for many of society's ills, e.g. obesity, adultery, rape... Food can taste good, but because it's so plentiful people need to learn to *control* their instincts otherwise they can go on eating food which tastes good to the point where it does them harm. Banging some hot girl walking down the street might be your instinct, but you learn to control it - otherwise you'll be causing mental distress, unwanted pregnancy (bad for society), might be spreading STDs, etc.

So I'm afraid I fundamentally disagree.

[deej5871]

Originally Posted by Oisín

Still very hard to explain, but I think I did at least a tiny bit better this time

I don't think I'll ever truly understand what you're saying simply because I have very few memories (well, specific event type memories) from my early childhood. I think I'll just leave it at that.

Originally Posted by zetroe

Except that it's our "animalistic instincts" which are responsible for many of society's ills, e.g. obesity, adultery, rape... Food can taste good, but because it's so plentiful people need to learn to *control* their instincts otherwise they can go on eating food which tastes good to the point where it does them harm. Banging some hot girl walking down the street might be your instinct, but you learn to control it - otherwise you'll be causing mental distress, unwanted pregnancy (bad for society), might be spreading STDs, etc.

So I'm afraid I fundamentally disagree.

I don't see how or why you disagree there. Even if some of our instincts are responsible for society's ills, we can't completely disregard them. That would mean we would completely stop eating, sleeping, reproducing, etc. We'd die out. Reproduction is just another instinct that needs control. Humans need to eat just as they need to reproduce. If you eat too much: obesity; if you reproduce too much: overpopulation. Therefore, having no desire to reproduce is just as "not normal" (as Oogabooga so accurately described it) as having no desire to eat, and I don't think either should be viewed as a natural thing.

[OogaBooga]

Originally Posted by deej5871

I don't see how or why you disagree there. Even if some of our instincts are responsible for society's ills, we can't completely disregard them. That would mean we would completely stop eating, sleeping, reproducing, etc. We'd die out. Reproduction is just another instinct that needs control. Humans need to eat just as they need to reproduce. If you eat too much: obesity; if you reproduce too much: overpopulation. Therefore, having no desire to reproduce is just as "not normal" (as Oogabooga so accurately described it) as having no desire to eat, and I don't think either should be viewed as a natural thing.

^ I agree.

Originally Posted by zetroe

Except that it's our "animalistic instincts" which are responsible for many of society's ills, e.g. obesity, adultery, rape... Food can taste good, but because it's so plentiful people need to learn to *control* their instincts otherwise they can go on eating food which tastes good to the point where it does them harm. Banging some hot girl walking down the street might be your instinct, but you learn to control it - otherwise you'll be causing mental distress, unwanted pregnancy (bad for society), might be spreading STDs, etc.

So I'm afraid I fundamentally disagree.

In order to sustain ourselves, we need a high level of self-discipline. Since our intelligence has lead to abundant food, technology, and a feeling of right from wrong (including emotions), we generally prevent ourselves from overindulging.

My point is that homosexuality is not normal, unless a species was designed to become extinct as soon as it was created.


In other words, we still follow our animalistic instincts, but we should limit it with our intelligence and self-discipline. In an animal world, obese people wouldn't be able to run from danger and scour for themselves, so they would die out. And we DO have a fundamental attraction to a partner once we've attempted reproduction, mainly to help raise and protect the offspring. But since it is our intelligence that has lead us to our civilized world, we need to control it with our intelligence.


My problem with homosexuality is that pays no attention to nature, and exists for passionate reasons (with the rest being learned). So... why would I want to be gay? I want kids!

[budster101]

[bikes]

no.
it's not.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally Posted by OogaBooga

My problem with homosexuality is that pays no attention to nature, and exists for passionate reasons (with the rest being learned). So... why would I want to be gay? I want kids!

I know lots of gay people who have kids.

I know lots and LOTS of straight people who do not want kids or infertile. Are they defects?

[Salty]

Depends on their motives for not having kids. If a woman can not have kids, then while she is not worthless or anything of that kind, she does have parts of her body that are not fulfilling what they are designed/supposed to do. You could call this a defect.
And if you look at a woman as only a means to pump out kids. Then yes she's a defect. However if you look at a woman as someone who should live their life to love God and love others then know a barren womb does not mean she is worthless.
That said if a couple can have kids but chooses not to depends on their reasons. If they simply don't want kids... then I am glad they don't have them kids shouldn't be brought into families where they are not wanted. If they do not want them because they would be inconvenient I think both that they should not have kids, as well they should stop being so bloody self-centred.

That said, right now I can't really tell anyone to have kids... I have yet to decide whether or not I should have any... I'm not sure I would be a good father... I'd want to be, but I would have to learn a lot that I didn't get to observe growing up. As well... I have yet to figure out other than perpetuating humanity... why it would be a good thing for me to have kids... or bring new life into such a messed up world...

[zetroe]

Originally Posted by deej5871

I don't see how or why you disagree there. Even if some of our instincts are responsible for society's ills, we can't completely disregard them.

I didn't say disregard them. Just that they're not exactly the be-all and end-all, and haven't kept up with the change in our social circumstances.

[zetroe]

Originally Posted by OogaBooga

In order to sustain ourselves, we need a high level of self-discipline. Since our intelligence has lead to abundant food, technology, and a feeling of right from wrong (including emotions), we generally prevent ourselves from overindulging.

So you admit that our instincts aren't always to be trusted.

My point is that homosexuality is not normal, unless a species was designed to become extinct as soon as it was created.

Lots of things aren't "normal". Who cares?

My problem with homosexuality is that pays no attention to nature, and exists for passionate reasons (with the rest being learned). So... why would I want to be gay? I want kids!

What are you talking about? "Pays no attention to nature"? People have already pointed to examples of homosexual relationships in "nature". But then apparently we can't take examples of other "less developed" creatures to be representative of us because we're all special and God gave us free will. There's no winning when arguing with you people.

What if it's in some people's nature to be attracted to people of the same sex? What if that's their "animalistic instinct"? Arguing that reproduction is the point of sex pays no attention to the fact that most people these days just have sex most of the time for fun, and that we're not exactly in danger of dying out through underpopulation.

Finally, please explain where anybody has said that you should want to be gay? I can't see how any sane person would want to be gay. Firstly there's the big social stigma associated with it, then the dramatically restricted choice of potential partners...

[Jacob]

I say, let people be who they are. It's the reason we have the wars in Iraq, and terrorism. 'People think their belief is the RIGHT way and push it on everyone else.' Unless people consciously come to a choice to accept these facts, maybe the world would be easier for people who are homosexual. They get beaten up, or even killed, everyday. Why? "They're not like us." Damn, well blame God then, he's the one who made us all different. Leave them be, I say. They are who they are, end of subject.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by tooki

Here here! THAT I'd like to know!



Well that one's easy: men are horny. Put two of them together, and you get horny squared.

tooki

You do realize you fall into that group the bitchy one anyways lol.

Im not bitchy my BF sure the hell is though.

[Warung]

Originally Posted by Salty

That said, right now I can't really tell anyone to have kids...

No, you can NEVER tell anybody to have kids.

[Moderator]

doesn't the whole homosexuality is a choice argument imply that heterosexulaity is a choice? I'm not aware of ever choosing to be hetero.

[wolfen]

The word "normal" is being continually misapplied in this discussion.

Statistically speaking, normal means average. "Deviation from normal" refers to to amount a PARTICULAR thing differs from average on some measureable scale. So if 5' 11" is normal height, then 6' 3" is NOT normal. There isn't a more useful way to use the word normal -- but there is a more judgmental way.

Having established that, there are statistics that can apply constructively to this discussion. An example would be the amount of homosexual behavior (acts) exhibited by a species as a percentage of all sexual activity. 0% is NOT the norm. Monkeys, dogs, penguins, etc...all kinds of examples can be found of homosexual behavior among various species. I don't know percentages, but it isn't 0.

Furthermore, the analysis that homosexuality isn't constructive to survival of the species is narrow minded. There are attributes beyond reproduction that help the species survive.

As an example, what percentage of the population is composed of super-geniuses? 1%? Is an infertile supergenius simply a freakish waste of resources? Clearly not. Here's an example of how normality and infertility are simultaneously eliminated as reasons to discount the individual's benefit to the whole. If gay people provide valuable social insight, and constantly challenge the species to THINK DIFFERENT, then that alone is a great benefit.

[Scientist]

Originally Posted by OogaBooga

My problem with homosexuality is that pays no attention to nature, and exists for passionate reasons (with the rest being learned). So... why would I want to be gay? I want kids!

Naturalistic Fallacy...almost

[benign]

Originally Posted by wolfen

The word "normal" is being continually misapplied in this discussion.

Statistically speaking, normal means average. "Deviation from normal" refers to to amount a PARTICULAR thing differs from average on some measureable scale. So if 5' 11" is normal height, then 6' 3" is NOT normal. There isn't a more useful way to use the word normal -- but there is a more judgmental way.

Having established that, there are statistics that can apply constructively to this discussion. An example would be the amount of homosexual behavior (acts) exhibited by a species as a percentage of all sexual activity. 0% is NOT the norm. Monkeys, dogs, penguins, etc...all kinds of examples can be found of homosexual behavior among various species. I don't know percentages, but it isn't 0.

Furthermore, the analysis that homosexuality isn't constructive to survival of the species is narrow minded. There are attributes beyond reproduction that help the species survive.

As an example, what percentage of the population is composed of super-geniuses? 1%? Is an infertile supergenius simply a freakish waste of resources? Clearly not. Here's an example of how normality and infertility are simultaneously eliminated as reasons to discount the individual's benefit to the whole. If gay people provide valuable social insight, and constantly challenge the species to THINK DIFFERENT, then that alone is a great benefit.

Nice piece of logical unbiased, circular drivel
- like saying: Sexual orientation is just Natures
catalyst - it means nothing.

Nature is freaky, but it has given us Lesbianism which is a big bonus.

[wolfen]

Originally Posted by benign

Nature is freaky, but it has given us Lesbianism which is a big bonus.

Congrats -- that's the first time you've posted something constructive.

[budster101]

Booyah!!!

Lipsticklesbos don't count...

[budster101]

Originally Posted by benign

Caption that!

"Vertical CPR demonstrated at social function, those interviewed gave it their aproval, Oddly only straight men voted..., they especially enjoyed the breast pump with simultaneous mouth-to-mouth action, which seemed to save time while the All male dancing paramedics arrived for the female guests..."

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by wolfen

Congrats -- that's the first time you've posted something constructive.

Meh, been there, see that daily.

[budster101]

< Now wants to hang out with MacNStein on a regular basis >

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by benign

Nature is freaky, but it has given us Lesbianism which is a big bonus...

...and a reasonably acceptable geeky solution if you have to go spank your own because you're not actually getting any from a hereto chick yourself.

Never mind B9. One day... One day...

[version]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

It's true, a lot of gay men who work in design, fashion, and beauty careers are self-hating bitches

I know this is a stereotype, but if anyone thinks it isn't true, go set up a hair appointment with the nearest overweight male hairdresser

Add the army to that list.

[version]

Originally Posted by Superchicken

and as a virgin I can say it's entirely possible to do it for a whole 21 years straight

I know a guy who'd love to break you in. Want me to hook you up with him?

[version]

Originally Posted by tooki

Yeah. I've never understood why women need a whole crew for moral support just to go take a piss... I've always been quite content to go on my own.

tooki

I prefer taking the crew of women with me

[version]

Originally Posted by tooki

1. You were given ample, repeated and specific warning to behave. You didn't, and have been banned. There's nothing more to it. A ban means that you are forbidden to participate here, regardless of what username you use.

2. Even though we don't (we're not petty like that), we have every right to ban people for any reason whatsoever. You are not entitled to anything here.

tooki

Yeah, but this is Zimboner we're talking about here - hypocrisy walking. If he was a real Christian, he'd accept he was no longer welcome somewhere and abide by the rules of someone else's forum, and thus disappear.

[version]

Originally Posted by BackInBlack

tooki you have a chip on your shoulder about me. You have a quick banning finger because you act on impulse. Sorry If I wont let you "bully" me.

It's his decision, his forum, why not do the Christian thing and accept the rules? Oh wait, you think you're being persecuted by him and thus it's ok to bend thise Jesus rules just a little.

Thing is, it's just a forum, how sad it appears to be your life.

[version]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Meh, been there, see that daily.

Yeah, must be hard watching it from the corner of the bar.

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by version

Yeah, must be hard watching it from the corner of the bar.

I think he was referring to the two girls he lives with.

I could be wrong, of course.

(And couldn't you keep some of all this in single posts rather than making a new post for each quote? It's easier...)

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by version

Yeah, must be hard watching it from the corner of the bar.

Nah, I just tell them, "take it to the bedroom, you're hogging the couch". They have no consideration when there's a game on the tube.

[Kerrigan]

Where did Zimmy go? I hope he hasn't hurt himself.

[Salty]

Originally Posted by version

It's his decision, his forum, why not do the Christian thing and accept the rules? Oh wait, you think you're being persecuted by him and thus it's ok to bend thise Jesus rules just a little.

Thing is, it's just a forum, how sad it appears to be your life.

Wait wait wait... you're telling me that to be a Christian I not only have to not drink, not smoke, not chew, not hang out with girls that do, but also I have to abide by forum rules...
FRICK I THOUGHT ALL I HAD TO DO WAS ACCEPT CHRIST'S LORDSHIP ON MY LIFE... frick... all these rules that people impose on a way of being they don't even understand.

[wolfen]

Originally Posted by Salty

Wait wait wait... you're telling me that to be a Christian I not only have to not drink, not smoke, not chew, not hang out with girls that do, but also I have to abide by forum rules...
FRICK I THOUGHT ALL I HAD TO DO WAS ACCEPT CHRIST'S LORDSHIP ON MY LIFE... frick... all these rules that people impose on a way of being they don't even understand.

The point is that accepting Christ is suppsed to mean a lot more than the words. There's a desire to exemplify his way of life, including purity, compassion, selflessness, and humility. Your willingness to demonstrate these traits (IN A VENUE THAT GIVES YOU PLENTY OF TIME TO PREPARE YOUR RESPONSES) would provide ample proof of your sincerity. I must admit that the view of your personal adaptation of your christianity is slightly tainted with the voices of other christians who frequent the lounge. In part, you suffer some measure of heightened scrutiny for their crimes. How you handle that will also help others see just where you stand in this whole "I'm a real christian" monologue you've got going.

Not trying to persecute you, just addressing your post.

(edited for less harshness)

[iNub]

This thread is idiotic!

Maybe, just maybe, there is no single reason why gay people are gay. Why does one person like cheese and another doesn't? Is it possible to know whether they made that choice or it's something in their body that makes that choice for them?

While I like the thread on its own merits, becuase the OP was just asking a question, there are a few select individuals here who like to turn everything into some kind of freaking soapbox to convince everybody that the only correct opinion is somewhere across the internet.

There is no provable reason why gays are gay, just like there are no provable reasons for any of human behavior. There is no right or wrong, there are only the things we do and the consequences of those actions. All you wingers need to just slow your roll.

We're all wrong.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by iNub

We're all wrong.

If that were true then you would be wrong too so that means that we could all still be right.

then/than mistake edited to avoid wrath of grammar nazis

[iNub]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

If that were true than you would be wrong too so that means that we could all still be right.

Hammer, nail, head.

[budster101]

This thread is so idiotic, everyone is posting in it....

[isao bered]

Originally Posted by Salty

FRICK I THOUGHT ALL I HAD TO DO WAS ACCEPT CHRIST'S LORDSHIP ON MY LIFE...

?? having a lord implies living by some sort of rules or dictated standards. and if christ is one's lord i would think certain precedences would apply. for instance, "render unto caesar" could easily correlate to "render unto mac.nn" - which, btw, would effectively be "render(ing) unto god that which is god's".

Originally Posted by Salty

all these rules that people impose on a way of being they don't even understand.

is it just me, or does this get the "biggest irony of the thread" award? ;-)

be well.

laeth

[Salty]

Originally Posted by isao bered

?? having a lord implies living by some sort of rules or dictated standards. and if christ is one's lord i would think certain precedences would apply. for instance, "render unto caesar" could easily correlate to "render unto mac.nn" - which, btw, would effectively be "render(ing) unto god that which is god's".



is it just me, or does this get the "biggest irony of the thread" award? ;-)

be well.

laeth

Wow sparky, you get a brown star.

First of all, being a Christian means accepting forgiveness of your sins and committing yourself to following God. That doesn't mean you start being perfect, sure you strive for that but you'll fail a lot. To suggest that Zimph is not a Christian because he's having a bad day and is pissed off shows that either you you have both an unreasonable expectation of what it means to be a Christian, and an unreasonable desire to look down on someone else.
You want to start quoting Jesus? How bout look at the speck in your own eye before someone else's? How bout go to your brother in secret, did you PM Zimph? How bout render unto Ceaser IE the government not Tooki a forum moderator.
Let's try and actually understand the Bible before we start quickly condemning those around us.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Salty

Wow sparky, you get a brown star.

First of all, being a Christian means accepting forgiveness of your sins and committing yourself to following God. That doesn't mean you start being perfect, sure you strive for that but you'll fail a lot. To suggest that Zimph is not a Christian because he's having a bad day and is pissed off shows that either you you have both an unreasonable expectation of what it means to be a Christian, and an unreasonable desire to look down on someone else.
You want to start quoting Jesus? How bout look at the speck in your own eye before someone else's? How bout go to your brother in secret, did you PM Zimph? How bout render unto Ceaser IE the government not Tooki a forum moderator.
Let's try and actually understand the Bible before we start quickly condemning those around us.

The problem with arguments like this involving the assumption that there are absolutes in text that can be universally understood is partially what led us to post-modern philosophy. I'm not a philosophy expert, but since we are trying to rationalize everything...

There is no "right" philosophy, but as far as religion goes, I think this line of argument (based on the assumption that language is a conduit for accurately conveying meaning) is what causes so many problems in the world.

Modern philosophy rejects the notion that I can "give" you my knowledge in a little box just by sitting down and talking you through it, and says that there are no absolute truths. Everything is related to one's experience, and one's experiences shapes how the world is perceived.

I think it can be safely said that rationalizing your faith and trying to explain it away in an intellectual way (or using passages of the bible to further an argument) doesn't work, and it hasn't worked for centuries. A faith is something that needs to be experienced, and you cannot give us this experience, no matter how open minded we are.

I can guarantee this argument is going to go nowhere. I'm centering you out, because you on multiple occasions have evangelized your faith here on this board. You are welcome to do so, I have no problems with Christianity at all, but trust me... you're wasting your time. Your rebuttal might be that this makes me close-minded, but if you agree with the fundamentals of modern philosophy, there is absolutely nothing you can say that will "give me" your faith. I'm not Mr. philosophy or Mr. philosophy advocate, but this is the best explanation I have for explaining why you can't give us your faith.

Arguments like this are a complete and utter waste of everybody's time.

[Salty]

Actually what you are saying is modern is actually post modern philosophy. You're using modern to describe today's philosophy when Today's prevalent philosophy is post modern. Modern philosophy states that there are absolute truths that can be known. Post modern philosophy is often riddled with mindless assertions that morality and truth are relative to a person, and that there are not absolutes. This of course appeals to the arrogant and morally bankrupt of today who do not wish to acknowledge their flaws.

Though perhaps if we wish to be truly post modern we should say. This is what post moderns "feels like to me", of course modern may "feel" like post modern to you, in which case because you "feel" modern is post modern, then modern is post modern for you.
That said... I've tried really hard to feel like I'm a super sexy stud with a butt you could bounce a quarter off of... but it hasn't happened yet... so truly... post modern philosophy is a load of crap. (Edit that, post modern relativism is a load of crap, there are actually aspects of post modernism that are fun, however he was almost exclusively talking about moral relativism.)

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Salty

Actually what you are saying is modern is actually post modern philosophy.

I was using the term "modern" literally, not as a classification of philosophy.

Post modern philosophy is often riddled with mindless assertions that morality and truth are relative to a person, and that there are not absolutes. This of course appeals to the arrogant and morally bankrupt of today who do not wish to acknowledge their flaws.

Wow... that's a jump! Moral relativism is now intertwined with post-modern philosophy... What you probably meant to say is that post-modern thinking can be used as a means to justify moral relativism. There's a big difference. If you really meant this exactly how it is written, it is funny how just a few posts back you were getting upset that somebody was making statements based on a misunderstanding of the bible...

Though perhaps if we wish to be truly post modern we should say. This is what post moderns "feels like to me", of course modern may "feel" like post modern to you, in which case because you "feel" modern is post modern, then modern is post modern for you.

Sorry, I'm honestly not understanding what you are saying here. Your punctuation is making this incoherent.

That said... I've tried really hard to feel like I'm a super sexy stud with a butt you could bounce a quarter off of... but it hasn't happened yet... so truly... post modern philosophy is a load of crap. (Edit that, post modern relativism is a load of crap, there are actually aspects of post modernism that are fun, however he was almost exclusively talking about moral relativism.)

I'm not following how I was talking about moral relativism? I didn't mention moral relativism in my post, I thought I was being as clear as possible with my language... sometimes my meanings are hard to follow though, I apologize if I wasn't clear.

Why do you write things like "post-modern philosophy is a load of crap... edit that?" Edit it yourself. Do you realize how arrogant it sounds for a 21 year-old to criticize the work of many philosophers? Perhaps there are some philosophers here that would find something like this offensive? Would you like it if they wrote "Christians love to masterbate... edit that"?

I also said in my post that I'm not trying to present any form of philosophy as "right", but using their perspective as a lens for looking at this issue. Again, I'm sorry if this wasn't clear.

[besson3c]

And another thing...

Perhaps post-modern thinking is used to rationalize moral relativity (it can probably be used to rationalize many other things too), but let's be honest here... religions, Christianity included, are often used to justify extremism.

Is one inherently better or worse than the other, Salty?

[isao bered]

Originally Posted by Salty

Wow sparky, you get a brown star.

First of all, being a Christian means accepting forgiveness of your sins and committing yourself to following God. That doesn't mean you start being perfect, sure you strive for that but you'll fail a lot. To suggest that Zimph is not a Christian because he's having a bad day and is pissed off shows that either you you have both an unreasonable expectation of what it means to be a Christian, and an unreasonable desire to look down on someone else.
You want to start quoting Jesus? How bout look at the speck in your own eye before someone else's? How bout go to your brother in secret, did you PM Zimph? How bout render unto Ceaser IE the government not Tooki a forum moderator.
Let's try and actually understand the Bible before we start quickly condemning those around us.

(sigh)
where to begin? firstly, i made absolutely *no* commentary on the zimphire situation - accusatorial or otherwise. i've checked again and i clearly referenced specific portions of *your* highly spirited post and commented on those. i have no problem if you take offense to that, but don't try to make me out as an antagonist in another situation that i've taken no part in.

as for any personal expectations regarding your profession of faith - i have little to none. you choose to live your life as you will and i have no qualms with that. however, i do most certainly *hope* that while you let a spirit and a word minister to your heart and soul that you'll thoughtfully consider (as in critical thinking, not politeness) the greater meaning. it is *very* reasonable to make a connection between obeying the rules of the land in which you reside (caesar's taxes) and obeying the rules of forum in which you post (macnn). granted, you may find the rules or application thereof undesirable. fine. work to change it (which, btw, seems to be what zimphire is attempting to do). i have absolutely no problem with that.

i wasn't (and am not) looking down on you - just in your general direction. truth be told, i have a number of hopes for you that i would like to see you realize. one of the reasons before that i exhorted you try to pray more than you post. you seem at times to be quite reckless, making emotional conclusions whereas you *may* be better served meditating a bit and responding from your joy and not your anger. for instance, it *seems* to me from your reply that you are so wanting to be angry at an enemy that you failed to realize you may be lashing a friend. there is such a thing as criticism for the betterment of a person.

quoting jesus? sure. i find it helpful to appeal to a person's reason from a direction they are likely to give creedence to. should i make references to william blake instead? and if you are going to quote jesus in response, that's fine, too. but please be a little more careful - your assertion should be that i remove the *log* from my own eye before worrying about the speck in my brother's.

judgment and condemnation. the passage you seem to be referring to (log and speck) does not say to never judge - it exhorts one to be unbiased and correct in their judgement. at any rate, i did not judge you. nor did i condemn either you or zimphire. that job has not been given to me and neither have i auditioned for it. i merely desire you to take more care in brandishing your beliefs.

and lastly, understanding and the public forum. the large number of disparate christian churches is testament that one person's (or organization's) "understanding" can be vastly different from another's. it is a foolish assumption to think one's viewpoint is the only one reconcilable to truth (with a capital "t"). to accuse another of not understanding the bible (as you see it) smacks in direct contradition to the fallability you express in the second sentence of your post - by making such a statement you most certainly appear to think you know far more than anyone who may disagree with you (or exhort you to betterment). as for why i posted publicly rather than im zimphire - i wasn't responding to zimphire. further, this is a public *forum* where people openly discuss so i responded to your public post with a public response. apparently, this is not too unsettling for you as you did not respond to me in private either.

be well.

laeth