Now, now, now 'willing'...

In need of special attention!!!

This post was not addressed to 'one' person in particular, and so definitely not YOU in particular !!!

It is clearly addressing a social mental virus where people think they can throw any number of unfounded and calumnious accusations, in people's backs, without ever having to be accountable for such cowardly and bestial acts.

On your comment:

'... If I were black, you wouldn't claim racism...'!!!

Isn't that priceless!!! You are administering yourself an 'ad hominem' blow.

Anyhow, allow me to play along:
'... If you were black...', I would definitely find your comments bigoted and narrow minded, and depending on the degree of darkness of your skin tone, maybe even racist!!!

As for your comment about 'ASSumptions', I suppose you can now enjoy the irony of it all,

... and who knows, possibly could you follow your own profound advice, and '... TAKE YER BS ELSEWHERE, DUD!...'

You bet 'dragoness'!

No offense to you personally 'msharmony', you are obviously a fair and good person from what can be read in your posts. Furthermore, I don't believe that the good and fair that you are has anything to do with religion. It is just that you are a fair and good fundamentally.

That being said, neither you, and much less I, have any say nor control over the wider christian, or multi dogma religious communities out there.

When it comes to the religious phenomenon as a whole, and this drug metaphor you brought up, the religious dogma fed to most believers is acting a lot more like some bad '... back alley crack cocaïne...', than any life saving therapy.

Like the crime enforcing agencies fighting the 'back alley' charlatans, I strongly believe that reasonable believers such as yourself, are going to have to bring in check the marginal elements of the religion you cherish.

If you agree, as you wrote above, that the bible can be misused, than you should defend what you consider to be its integrity, and denounce any pretending christian, whom persists in perverting what you consider to be sacred!!!

This is the kind of ignorant, bigoted, racist, narrow-minded, and dangerously delusional mental construct that lead to the WWII genocides.

Notice, with the exception of the recent mention of Catholic priests, every single examples brought up to justify the opposing camp 'unfounded attacks', happen to involve a darker skin tone person.

WTF kind of incurable disease are some folks plagued with. What the heck is this 'monkey court' turning into.

A golfer, whom has committed no crime whatsoever, is now being compared and associated to several darker skin toned public figures and some ALLEGED crimes of MURDER and UNDER AGE SEX!!!

Hey People!!! Freedom of speech is one thing. But have you no shame???

How can anyone lend credibility to anything said by people whom do just that: SAY ANYTHING!!!

Things unfounded, unintelligent, irrational and senseless, written by otherwise intelligent individuals, hide ugly and malevolent motives.

Tiger is a decent and upright human being like most of us. And like most of us, he comes with his share of imperfections.
Also like millions of other US citizens, males and females, whom project a 'whiter than white image' (thought that expression was appropriate) in their lives, Tiger has had sex with partners other than his spouse.

Well, just like those millions of other 'whiter than white' folks, whom are having sex with partners other than their spouses, and from whom we never hear, CAUSE IT'S NONE OF OUR G'DARN BUSINESS,
... the opposing camp must let go of the filth they are generating around this monkey trial.

The only evidence gathered here, is evidence of bigotry, racism and narrow-mindedness committed by the spreaders of such on this forum.

The man is the world's greatest golfer.
In the public domain, that's all he is to us folks.

Just like your private lives are none of other people's business,
... jealous that you are of the individual rights, protection and freedoms afforded by the Constitution for ALL,
... well so is Tiger's private life; none of our business PERIOD.

This basic instinct and primitive witch hunt has gone way beyond the inescapable rights of freedom of speech we must afford for the insistent bigot and racist sentiments sleeping at the ready in our society.

Enough is enough. Tiger is a golfer!!! As for the rest, put a sock in it!!!

If some must absolutely 'denounce' adulterers, as some sort of bad habit, at least switch to some 'whiter-than-white' ones. It will at the very least, have the merit of balancing out the bigotry and narrowmindedness.

As my 'grampa' use to joke: '... if only those bigots could spread their venom to all, evenly!!!...'

Well 'msharmony', that puts you argument in total and absolute contradiction with most of your christian fellowship.

They view 'defending' their god' through war as their personal 'DUTY TO THEIR GOD'!!!
Something THEIR GOD WILLED THEM TO ENGAGE IN. IN THE NAME OF GOD!!! THEY STILL CLAIM!!! Right up to our most contemporary 'W', waging a holy war against the 'axis of evil'!!!

With that faithful mental construct, Pope Pius was correctly figuring (according to YOUR FAITH) that his 'god' was gloriously calling his 'Jewish' cousins to heaven EARLY!!! Like you 'msharmony', Pius chose to interpret what was happening, not as atrocities, NOT AS PUNISHMENT, but rather, as a blessing!!!

It is only long after the genocidal war, that we all woke up to the unnameable consequences of man's religious mental contructs, when applied to reality.

Dangerous mental virus, with real atrocious consequences.

Pope Pius XII's view was exactly the same as the one you expressed about the 'flood fable' and the 'Haïti tragedy'.
You wrote:
'... If you believe, as I do, that death is not a punishment than things which lead to death are also not punishment...'

Since Pope Pius couldn't do anything to stop the WWII, he figured as you do, that it was 'his god's will, where one should never be so pretentious as to intervene in 'god's will, and whatever '... lead to death...' through your 'god's will, '... is not punishment...' but a blessing!!! Who would want to stop 'god's blessings!?!?!?

This is a perfect example of a mental construct through faith!!!

As long as it remains in the personal domain of one's faith, there is no problem. However, when you apply this mental construct to 'real life' situations, it always ends-up either causing, or collaborating to cause the worst human atrocities.

That is exactly what makes this 'domain of 'god' mentality dangerous for the human race.

When one considers the fable of the flood, or the recent Haïti tragedy, some sort of 'domain of 'god' 'just' phenomenons!
... this same person has to agree with Pope Pius XII, whom felt that he had no right to intervene in 'god's will, when faced with questions about the unraveling of the WWII holocaust during his pontifical reign!!!

A very twisted way of making mass murdering, a sort of acceptable concept (most of them going to this imaginary heaven, for good conscience) when and only when one truly believes the mass murder is conveniently 'handled' by an imaginary 'god'.

Sorry!!!

With all due respect to your personal beliefs 'msharmony', I am experiencing a great sense of relief reading your reply to 'funches', knowing that our world is no longer ruled by 'bible believing' individuals.

In contemporay terms, that statement of yours ranks right alongside the hysterical comments Pat Robertson made about 'your god' punishing Haïti for 'whatever'.

Hopefully, as a race, we have overcome at least in principle, if not totally in practice, the primitive and barbarian 'godly' mentality of the 'flood' fable. That is where 'hope' rests for the human race IMHO: far from those unjust and evil bible fables.

That's a BINGO!!! 'singmesweet'.

Out of the 1 000+ public figures committing adultery, some obsessively and compulsively insist on demonizing the 'one' convenient public figure of a slightly different skin tone.

Also interesting that those same compulsive 'one track mind hunters' demonized President Clinton on the same adultery 'cross'. He was referred to as the 'first black president' by those same 'obsessive/compulsive color sorters'!!!

Counter-respectfully msharmony,

... that is exactly my point when I speak of your resolve to keep making sense of that which was never intended to make sense.

I'm clear this whole 'asking 'god' forgiveness' and 'fearing 'god' thing' makes perfect sense TO YOU.
And I respect your right to believe.
But this belief you speak of, is a personal construct, and it only makes sense to you, in the perspective of YOUR PERSONAL FAITH; taken ON FAITH by you personally!!!

Outside of 'TAKEN ON FAITH', statements such as 'asking forgiveness to your personal 'god', and 'fearing this personal 'god' of yours', makes absolutely no sense.

In my humble opinion, the one whom believes, must become responsible in acknowledging this fine line in his exchanges with others; what one personally takes on faith, cannot, and should not be argued as though it automatically made sense in the public domain.

By definition, faith and beliefs, making up one's faith, are not founded on facts, nor are they founded on common sense!!!
By definition, faith and beliefs MAKE NO SENSE, other than to the ONE whom holds the belief on faith.

Non-believers ARE NOT BEING OFFENSIVE in pointing this persisting incoherence. On the contrary, in my opinion, it is the believer whom persists in ignoring and confusing the fine line of personal and public domains, carrying on as though their's were the only position that MADE SENSE, refusing to respect the non-believer's position as equally legitimate to the believer's!!!

That, in my view, is the ultimate offense of non-respect toward others!!!

Proselytizing, promoting, or otherwise 'pushing' as real one's beliefs onto others without permission, is not the lot of the non-believers or the respectful believer.

It is the lot of 'religious' people 'spreading', 'sharing' or 'evangelizing' the word of their 'god' without any regards for those whom do not wish to have that word 'spread' onto them, much less 'shared' or 'evangelized'!!! People wishing to expose themselves to the 'word spreading +' treatment, are free to enter any number of local churches 'spread' throughout the land, or enter in
'one-on-one' exchanges with any believer they encounter on their personal journey.

Taking responsibility for each other's legitimate privilege and right to 'believe' AND to 'not believe', is where the real debate should take place.
A debate for true peaceful and generous co-existence outside of the 'believe or die' dictate.
A debate proposed by the very 'founders' of the US of A, and spelled out in its constitution more than 230 years ago.

I bet the founding fathers never imagined that their vision would still be just that, a vision and project yet to be manifested 230 years later.

WOW! 'msharmony' and 'cowboy',

... there is just no end to your mission of defending, explaning, justifying all the illogisms, contradictions and wall-to-wall confusion that that 'god' of yours built into 'his creation'!!!

I truly I'm impresssed by your resolve. I never could, nor would I ever want to deal with the impossible job of trying to contain or hoping to straighten out that much 'godly' BS.

Wouldn't it be simpler for yourselves to just go on faith, and stop trying to make sense out of stuff that was never meant to make sense???

As usual 'Giocamo', the logic of your comments is mostly...

...'homemade'!

Suggesting, in some twisted manner, that a man having sex with other women, should somehow be ridden of all love and affection towards his children, and thus,
... should he show love and affection towards his kids in public, AUTOMATICALLY MAKE'S HIM A PHONY?!?!?!? ... that is rather suspect logic!!!

Or might it be even more twisted than that...

... such a person 'might be' allowed to show love and affection for his kids IN PRIVATE,

but for your sake,

... NOT IN PUBLIC !?!?!?! ... then all would be good!?!?!?

... and who is the hypocrite again?!?!?!

'cowboy',
don't take this the wrong way - you're a good man, there is no doubt about that - but you would be doing yourself, your 'god' and the whole fellowship of fundamentalist christians you belong to, a huge favor,
... if you were to learn, and practice avoiding sinking beyond the point of no return in your discussions.

It's not fun for any of us to witness you sink to such low grounds everytime.

Retire and regroup. You'll only come back stronger in the next round!!!

Tiger Woods is a 'GOLFER'!!!

Uses a stick, swings, hits, follows-through, and sinks balls in the fewer hits possible.

What the heck is wrong with this society of ours, where we would expect A GOLFER to behave as though he were the second coming of Christ.

'****in scumbag' you say!!!

You mean, just like millions of other american sticks, committing adultery every day, everywhere in the US of A, never having to give public account of their deed?!?!?! The double standard is a pathetic joke on all of us.

If we as a people weren't such hypocrites, Tiger Woods would simply be the great golfer that he is, and the rest would be between him, his wife, and his family members.

'cowboy', I don't misquote, and I sure didn't misquote you. I copy pasted YOUR words.

As for the meaning, it would appear that your own meaning is 'passing YOU up', as you so colorfully stated above.

Finally, I am not playing word games with you my friend. You on the other hand, take huge liberties with the english language.

'IF' since you insist for a more thorough explanation, IMPLIES A CONDITION!!!
Now, I'll write this very slowly:

there cannot be a condition in anything UNCONDITIONAL!!!


Thus the closing statements:

'YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!', and

'EVEN YOUR GOD COULDN'T AGREE WITH YOU ON THIS ONE!!!'

Slow down there 'cowboy'!!!

You can't have both ways!!!

You wrote a beauty here, with an affirmation, and its correlate contradiction in one straight and simple low word count sentence:

"... But very true he loves you unconditionally if you ask for forgiveness..."

Unconditional means no conditions: NO 'IF's ALLOWED!!!

That's what I meant when I suggested your own 'god', perfect as he is, couldn't possibly agree with the contradiction you are proposing about his own divine nature.

Respectfully disagreeing with you here 'Miles'.
This is always a place meant FOR debating.

We could define the nature and type of debates that take place on these very 'FORUMS', but it sure is a general debating 'place'.

From your comment above, and I might be wrong here, but it appears to me that you limit debating to its more formal formats such as: Parliamentary, Mace, Public, Classical, Lincoln-Douglas (good old high school format) and many other formal styles I forget.

But there are informal styles of debating as well. And the online debates, such as the ones found on these very forums are very much part of the informal debating format.

Now you may not appreciate the 'informal' types of debating.

It is true that informal debates are filled with 'flaming', and other forms of 'local tavern' type argumentation, consisting primarily of assertions and vague and unsupported opinions, but it is all very much within the informal debating fair.

Furthermore, to expect the 'debating forums' of a dating site to be structured, disciplined and educational, as you appeared to wish for in your previous comment, is expecting a tad much of this place.

Expecting something rigorous and orderly out of an intened random and informal context; now that would be the oxymoron you were pointing at earlier.

'... Thank you Mr.Moderator, I see my time is up...', ... now wouldn't that be special!!!

Can't be 'cowboy' !!! You can't keep having it both ways!!!

It's unconditional or it's not.

Even 'god' doesn't agree with you here!

Well '4974', looks like you have just engaged in an argument with those whom argue!!!

Arguing and counter arguing, or going 'tit for tat' is what debating, and these forums are all about '4974'.

This is a place where, contrary to what you 'argued' in your post above,
... arguing and counter-arguing, following certain rules of civility and avoiding personal attacks, IS EXACTLY WHAT THERE IS TO DO.

So, to your legitimate argument 'don't argue', I repectfully counter-argue,

... on the contrary, this is a place designed FOR civil arguments!!!