Community > Posts By > KerryO

 
KerryO's photo
Thu 05/12/11 04:41 PM




LOL!! Nah, that was just an old prototype. The beta version more closely resembles an M.C. Escher drawing entitled "House of Stairs".

http://www.worldofescher.com/gallery/A23L.html

-Kerry O.

KerryO's photo
Mon 05/09/11 04:57 PM
I'm very close to perfecting the first Virtual Treehouse where like-minded people can congregate and keep the riff-raff at bay.

To gain entry to a particular Virtual Treehouse, have the user type <CTRL> <#> <#> <#>. If the owner lets you in and you find it wasn't what you expected, type <CTRL> <ESC>. IF you want to throw an unwanted guest out of your Virtual Treehouse on their astericks, type <CTRL> <ALT> <DEL>.

Virtual Treehouse is brought to you by Uh-O Industries.

-Kerry O.

KerryO's photo
Sun 05/08/11 06:50 AM


What's this??? Conservatives calling for government regulation of that last bastion of freedom, the Wall Street speculators? Say it isn't so!

Whattsa matter, Wild West casino...errrr, free markets giving you heartburn in the wallet? $4.00/gal gas with record Big Oil profits doesn't taste so good with 9% unemployment?

Don't say nobody told you so when you put Republicans at least partially back in power again. BTW, where-oh-where is the Tea Party contingent in this whole affair? Hiding out? Elect Dr. No for POTUS, we need $5.00/gal gas.


-Kerry O.


I didn't realize ending tax breaks and subsidies is classified as regulation.

The moratorium on new off shore drilling is regulation and the price jump in oil is a direct result in tightening supplies.

Good call on that one.

The geniuses in the white house want high gas prices so Government Motors can sell more $40,000 Volts..

They want to sell their shares and don't want to have to explain to the tax payer why we are going to take a $10 billion dollar loss.






I think if you'll do the dilgence to check, there is no 'tightening of supplies', just the fearmongering meant to drive prices up at the expense of the working class. Thus, it doesn't matter how many new wells are drilled, there will STILL be a glut on the 'free' market.

This is the same faulty reasoning as trickle-down economics. We've heard for decades how that was the Holy Grail of Republican policies, yet here we are with millionaires being minted at a pace never seen before in American history, and the middle class is STILL losing ground. We heard how productivity is the single biggest factor that has kept the American worker stuck in place financially, yet last year the American worker was the most productive in the world and we STILL have 9% unemployment.

Maybe it's just me, but I think there's nothing more pathetic than an abused ox that loves its yoke and shows it by putting people like Pat Toomey from Pennsylvania in office with all his 'Club for Growth' hogwash theories.


-Kerry O.

KerryO's photo
Sun 05/08/11 02:49 AM
What's this??? Conservatives calling for government regulation of that last bastion of freedom, the Wall Street speculators? Say it isn't so!

Whattsa matter, Wild West casino...errrr, free markets giving you heartburn in the wallet? $4.00/gal gas with record Big Oil profits doesn't taste so good with 9% unemployment?

Don't say nobody told you so when you put Republicans at least partially back in power again. BTW, where-oh-where is the Tea Party contingent in this whole affair? Hiding out? Elect Dr. No for POTUS, we need $5.00/gal gas.


-Kerry O.

KerryO's photo
Sat 05/07/11 01:00 PM


his death was an act of war
he lived in hiding because of his terrorism
had he been a modle citizen none of this would have happened
to think anyone in the US military is in any way gloating right now is just sick
terrorism will be dealt with in turn
we have said that
we mean that
and we don't care how long it takes

keep your terrorism outta here. that simple


Yes, but he was a creation of the US regime. (blowback is a b*tch, isn't it?) Had the US not trained and armed him in his war against the Soviets, he would never have gotten as far as he has-winning against the US regime even in his death. (his goal was always to get the US to destroy itself in a futile "war". He won.)


I agree with a lot of what you say--- we stupidly keep ignoring blowback time after time and expect different results. We justify the indefensible and then act all surprised that we were the catalyst for the formation of rabid regimes bent on indiscriminate destruction.

On that basis, I feel that OBL's death was a circle completing itself. Reciprocity was done, he was paid back in the same coin for which he worked. But I feel no elation about it-- only relief that his death only served to make the world safer as when a rabid animal is euthanized.

Almost like this dialogue from 'Avatar'


Jake Sully: Hey, wait a second! Where are you goin'? Wait up! Just, hey, slow down! I just wanted to say thanks for killin' those things...
[Neytiri hits him with her bow]
Jake Sully: Aah! Damn!
Neytiri: Don't thank. You don't thank for this! This is sad. Very sad only.
Jake Sully: Okay, okay. I'm sorry. Whatever I did, I'm sorry.
Neytiri: All this is your fault. They did not need to die.
Jake Sully: My fault? They attacked me! How am I the bad guy?
Neytiri: Your fault! Your fault.
Jake Sully: Easy. Easy...
Neytiri: You are like a baby. Making noise, don't know what to do.
Jake Sully: Easy. Shh. Fine. Fine. If you loved your little forest friends... why not let them kill my ***? What's the thinking?
Neytiri: Why save you?
Jake Sully: Yeah. Yeah, why save me?
Neytiri: You have a strong heart. No fear. But stupid! Ignorant like a child!
[Neytiri walks away and Jake follows after her]
Jake Sully: Well, if I'm like a child, then look, maybe you should teach me.
Neytiri: Sky People cannot learn, you do not See.
Jake Sully: Then teach me how to See.
Neytiri: No one can teach you to See.




-Kerry O.

KerryO's photo
Sat 05/07/11 05:41 AM

God does not mind being called Chi.

laugh

Gravity and Magnetism are both qualities and properties of the universe. There is no need to distinguish between various elements
of the whole. The universe is both green and has planets.

And yes, it is self-evident. Beautiful that. And there is only one.
The same one Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and Christians believe in
whether they realize it or not.

laugh


I wonder if he minded being in a episode of Futurama?



God : Bender, being God isn't easy. If you do too much, people get dependent on you, and if you do nothing, they lose hope. You have to use a light touch. Like a safecracker, or a pickpocket.

Bender: Or a guy who burns down a bar for the insurance money!

God: Yes, if you make it look like an electrical thing. When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.




-Kerry O.


KerryO's photo
Tue 05/03/11 07:30 PM

Bush claims he was forced to to invade Iraq as a last resort. But Bush wanted to invade Iraq from the very beginning of his presidency. Many of his team came from the PNAC, a thinktank which urged the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and pointed out the need for a "new Pearl Harbor". “From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Ron Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”

This is not a situation where Bush said ten things and one of them was wrong. Basically everything Bush said about the threat from Iraq was false. He had no solid evidence of any threat but still led us into this deadly and costly war. Here are the main lies about the threat from Iraq given by Bush and Cheney:


Even with what is now known, a majority of the American public _still_ believe Saddam was in league with bin Laden. On this basis, a thought experiment bringing GWB to trial for war crimes can have only one result-- acquittal. Because a jury of his peers would be hopelessly deadlocked in its refusal to believe anything but what is most expedient to believe. And the Congressional Democrats sure aren't going to make waves because they bought into the expediency because of their desire not to get caught in the gears.

Sad to say, but History will be the only one able to portray the Blind Lady with the Scales in this affair. And as always, there are only three type of people involved-- those who start the wars, those who fight them, and those who are unfortunate enough to get caught in the crossfire.


-Kerry O.

KerryO's photo
Tue 05/03/11 07:30 PM

Bush claims he was forced to to invade Iraq as a last resort. But Bush wanted to invade Iraq from the very beginning of his presidency. Many of his team came from the PNAC, a thinktank which urged the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and pointed out the need for a "new Pearl Harbor". “From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Ron Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”

This is not a situation where Bush said ten things and one of them was wrong. Basically everything Bush said about the threat from Iraq was false. He had no solid evidence of any threat but still led us into this deadly and costly war. Here are the main lies about the threat from Iraq given by Bush and Cheney:


Even with what is now known, a majority of the American public _still_ believe Saddam was in league with bin Laden. On this basis, a thought experiment bringing GWB to trial for war crimes can have only one result-- acquittal. Because a jury of his peers would be hopelessly deadlocked in its refusal to believe anything but what is most expedient to believe. And the Congressional Democrats sure aren't going to make waves because they bought into the expediency because of their desire not to get caught in the gears.

Sad to say, but History will be the only one able to portray the Blind Lady with the Scales in this affair. And as always, there are only three type of people involved-- those who start the wars, those who fight them, and those who are unfortunate enough to get caught in the crossfire.


-Kerry O.

KerryO's photo
Tue 05/03/11 06:57 PM

I beg to differ. One can't swing a dead cat on Internet religion boards without hitting scores of Biblical Inerrantists who think the bible is THE Literal Word of God. Period. End of Discussion.

The last time I brought up the Midianites on a religion board on this site, one such apologist made a spirited argument that God Almighty answers to no mere human code of justice and that the Midiantite children were 'being saved from evil' by being slaughtered by Moses, et al. And that no mere Unbeliever really understands that logic.

Well, thank God for that.


-Kerry O.



I've heard that same argument. Even if that were the case, the thing that I find abhorrent and ungodly is that this so-called God had Moses ask his armies to take their swords and slaughter men, women and children without mercy.

If God is so God-almighty powerful, he could have simply sucked the life out of these people himself.

Hence my conclusion is that Moses was a big fat LIAR. He never talked to God at all. OR some ALIEN was posing as the almighty God.

I would say to that God.... DO YOUR OWN KILLING.





That whole affair reminds me more of the Salem Witch Trials, where the righteos bring the 'evil' to God's justice as a cover for their own gain and nefarious purposes.

Or, this scene from Star Trek V: The Final Frontier:



Kirk: What does God need with a starship?
McCoy: Jim, what are you doing?
Kirk: I'm asking a question.
"God": Who is this creature?
Kirk: Who am I? Don't you know? Aren't you God?
Sybok: He has his doubts.
"God": You doubt me?
Kirk: I seek proof.
McCoy: Jim! You don't ask the Almighty for his ID!
"God": Then here is the proof you seek.
[Hits Kirk with lightning]
Kirk: Why is God angry?
Sybok: Why? Why have you done this to my friend?
"God": He doubts me.
Spock: You have not answered his question. What does God need with a starship?
"God": [hits Spock with lightning; then addresses McCoy] Do you doubt me?
McCoy: I doubt any God who inflicts pain for his own pleasure.



-Kerry O.


KerryO's photo
Tue 05/03/11 06:35 PM
Edited by KerryO on Tue 05/03/11 06:36 PM

The book of Job in the Old Testament tells the rather curious (and subversive) story about Satan coming to God and making a wager about righteous people. Satan says to God, basically, "Of course he's righteous. Look how much you've blessed him with children, wealth, and good health. So what?"

So God makes a wager with Satan, go ahead and take away his children, his wealth, and his health, and we'll see about it.

So Job loses his wealth and all of his children are killed, and then he's struck with a horrible disease.

This is the "preface" to the story in the book of Job, which is like one of the philosophical dialogues that was a popular literary form in the past. Various friends come to him and discuss the nature of evil and God and so on.

But what is amazing to me is the preface itself, due to the subversive way in that it portrays God. God just blithely makes a wager with Satan that wipes the man out. His sons and daughters are killed as the result of this wager.

Now, what kind of a god is that?


The kind of God that people who think they are made in his image act like when they think He is only on _their_ side. The kind of god who is worshipped by those persecuted for their religion, but who become every bit as bad as their persecutors when THEY finally get their chance to sit in the catbird seat.

In other words, typical human beings...

-Kerry O.

KerryO's photo
Tue 05/03/11 06:12 PM






I didn't know Moses did that, but I guess I'm not at all surprised.


Moses didn't really do that. It is only a story.

laugh


Ah, but if that's true, that opens an even BIGGER can of worms for the Biblical Infallibility folks-- the fact that the author(s) of the Bible lied about history.


-Kerry O.


It is no lie. It is not a historical account. It is stories.
Bible stories. Nobody believes it is historically accurate.
So there is no can of worms.

laugh



Here is my question. If Moses is supposed to be a big hero, or an important man of God, why would they write stories about him being a tyrant and ordering these deaths?




So it will make you think. It is important to ask why. Or maybe it
was a rogue co-author. The point is that if you involve yourself in
polite interpretation and analysis there is always a lot to learn.

I view the bible as one of humankind's earliest attempts at ethics
and philosophy and it should be taken as such - a starting point
for such discussions not an end in itself. Most theologians would
easily agree with this and acknowledge the contradictions which are
obvious and not take the bible literally. No mainstream Jewish,
Christian or Muslim theologians suggest that it is appropriate to
take the bible literally because this is absurd.

Wait! I've got it. It was the Devil!

laugh


I beg to differ. One can't swing a dead cat on Internet religion boards without hitting scores of Biblical Inerrantists who think the bible is THE Literal Word of God. Period. End of Discussion.

The last time I brought up the Midianites on a religion board on this site, one such apologist made a spirited argument that God Almighty answers to no mere human code of justice and that the Midiantite children were 'being saved from evil' by being slaughtered by Moses, et al. And that no mere Unbeliever really understands that logic.

Well, thank God for that.


-Kerry O.

KerryO's photo
Sun 05/01/11 05:24 AM


I didn't know Moses did that, but I guess I'm not at all surprised.


Moses didn't really do that. It is only a story.

laugh


Ah, but if that's true, that opens an even BIGGER can of worms for the Biblical Infallibility folks-- the fact that the author(s) of the Bible lied about history.


-Kerry O.

KerryO's photo
Sat 04/30/11 10:20 PM





The real history of the Bible would shock you.


It's pages contain stories of 'God's People' mercilessly slaughtering innocent Midianite children, yet its Believers have the audacity to complain about violence in the Quran?

Not to mention that it's a cobbled-together work, its 'books' being chosen by mortal men from among a whole plethora of ghostwritten works after that crucified guy's death. Most of the 'winning' works were allegedly written by Paul, a murderer.

And it's riddled with contradiction and inaccuracy.


-Kerry O.


You have to be able to read with better eyes and understanding than that.
I'm not denying that it's a jigsaw puzzle. I've seen the various regional dialects oftentimes written in the same sentence.
If you read only the english translations, of course it seems full of contradictions and inaccuracies.
However, when you read it in the language that is closer in date to its origins, you begin to see things that leaves you wondering "why did they change it so much?" (Historically, the Council of Nicene was attempting to unify the empire under one banner ... and it partially explains the cause of the misinterpretations).

The two factions in competition for total power and control of the "holy lands" during the years of the crusades were the muslims and [christians under roman rule]. But that does not mean either side was right in the way they pursued control. In a word, it was the beast.


from EasternSquirrel who said:

"If you read only the english translations, of course it seems full of contradictions and inaccuracies.
However, when you read it in the language that is closer in date to its origins, you begin to see things that leaves you wondering "why did they change it so much?" (Historically, the Council of Nicene was attempting to unify the empire under one banner ... and it partially explains the cause of the misinterpretations)."


All the more reason to totally reject the rewritten version of the Bible we have been told was the "word of God" that is available today. Your average person on the street doesn't have time to seek out and attempt to read the Bible in the language closer in date to its origins. People don't speak or write those languages.

So your solution is unrealistic. No body is going to do that. Period.

Therefore we are left with a book we can't believe or trust.

There are many spiritual books today that reveal the hidden knowledge and wisdom of the ages without having to decode the Bible and try to interpret it. It has been misunderstood for 2000 years. Its time to move on to better things that make more sense.


The real truth to the matter is this....
It isn't the books (or any books for that matter) that should be relied upon for the source of any absolute truths or doctorines. That in of itself is falicious and misleading being biased towards those who wrote it.
The truth comes from within.
The true "word" is written within us. The "word" isn't necessariliy "the spoken or written word", but is the nature of the spirit within us.
We cannot rely upon a "written word" by anyone to tell us what's right or wrong or give us absolute guidance in all matters.
For example:
You're driving along the beach and you see some people trying to dig their car out of the sand before the tide comes in and sweeps it away (or submerges it). You happen to be driving a 4x4 and have a tow rope handy. You see other capable 4x4's passing them by.
Since you're there and have the ability to help, don't you feel an urge to stop and give them an assist?
Here is another example:
Your neighbors' lawn looks really ratty since they don't have a lawnmower (or it's broken for whatever reason) .... You happen to have at your disposal the means to make it better for them. Something inside you urges you to take matters in your own hands and help.
Current events are full of examples on a more grand scale.
See, it's not all about accepting or rejecting what was actually written. It's more about accepting or rejecting what you often don't see that's written in a different way. Those are examples that you can read about and you live in such situations.



Did Moses 'look within himself' before he ordered the slaughter of his wife's own people on the flimsiest justifications?

I think not...


-Kerry O.

KerryO's photo
Sat 04/30/11 02:59 PM



The real history of the Bible would shock you.


It's pages contain stories of 'God's People' mercilessly slaughtering innocent Midianite children, yet its Believers have the audacity to complain about violence in the Quran?

Not to mention that it's a cobbled-together work, its 'books' being chosen by mortal men from among a whole plethora of ghostwritten works after that crucified guy's death. Most of the 'winning' works were allegedly written by Paul, a murderer.

And it's riddled with contradiction and inaccuracy.


-Kerry O.


You have to be able to read with better eyes and understanding than that.
I'm not denying that it's a jigsaw puzzle. I've seen the various regional dialects oftentimes written in the same sentence.
If you read only the english translations, of course it seems full of contradictions and inaccuracies.
However, when you read it in the language that is closer in date to its origins, you begin to see things that leaves you wondering "why did they change it so much?" (Historically, the Council of Nicene was attempting to unify the empire under one banner ... and it partially explains the cause of the misinterpretations).
The two factions in competition for total power and control of the "holy lands" during the years of the crusades were the muslims and [christians under roman rule]. But that does not mean either side was right in the way they pursued control. In a word, it was the beast.


As usual, all the same, age-old excuses for the barbarism by God's Chosen, and the blatant contradictions in the holy books. "It was translations." "It was Satan!"

As far as history goes, Moses had a Midianite wife. One wonders if she was killed, too-- the Bible doesn't say and I'd bet Christian historians/apologists find it VERY inconvenient, so they just ignore it.


Just as you did in your rebuttal, that conveniently ignores genocide that the Bible reports. What does the Bible say about pointing out the beams in the eyes of others?

Not mention their forgiving Paul for being the ancient equivalent of a German SS officer...


-Kerry O.


KerryO's photo
Sat 04/30/11 05:30 AM

The real history of the Bible would shock you.


It's pages contain stories of 'God's People' mercilessly slaughtering innocent Midianite children, yet its Believers have the audacity to complain about violence in the Quran?

Not to mention that it's a cobbled-together work, its 'books' being chosen by mortal men from among a whole plethora of ghostwritten works after that crucified guy's death. Most of the 'winning' works were allegedly written by Paul, a murderer.

And it's riddled with contradiction and inaccuracy.


-Kerry O.

KerryO's photo
Fri 04/29/11 05:35 PM

Now iof your Agnostic..

ăg-nŏs'tĭk)
n.
1.
a.One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b.One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2.One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
adj.
1.Relating to or being an agnostic.
2.Doubtful or noncommittal: "Though I am agnostic on what terms to use, I have no doubt that human infants come with an enormous 'acquisitiveness' for discovering patterns" (William H. Calvin).

Non committal..They wonder if thier is something else. Just not willing to make a effort to see if "this something else" is real. Easier to stay put and not start a fire. Burning is a nomenclature.

What are they? Skeptical. can never believe in anything.. The boogie man is a possibilty also..what good do they do for themselves or others? they never know what to do.. Thier.....

Say its impossible..

2.. Skeptical..

3.. Athiesm? No can't do that.. not sure u see.

4 Doubtful

5 Non Committal


6 Thier numbers freaks..Gotta be a Pattern.. or can not be true.

7 Very inquizative.. yet can not make up thier mind.

Lot of good qualities.. where did they come from. The inquizetive mind should wonder where did all this get started.

whats the beginning. Manmade but who thought this science of unknowing up?

They just can not figure anything out so the Bow out of life.

Yea I wonder where the roots of AGNOCTIC are really from.. anyone know? Blessings...Miles







"Captain, the most elementary and valuable statement in science, the beginning of wisdom, is 'I do not know.'" -- Lt. Commander Data


And to add that, just because someone is sure their view of the Universe is THE correct one does NOT make it so. Nor does it hold more sway by saying that agnostics have 'no idea'. It's faulty logic, known as a false dichotomy.


It's also pretty inaccurate to say 'they can't figure anything out, so they bow out of life.' If anything, it's the religious who have sandbagged research into the very roots and mechanics of life itself by trying to outlaw stem cell research and other such fields of inquiry on the basis of THEIR religious beliefs.


-Kerry O.

KerryO's photo
Fri 04/29/11 05:10 PM
Second carny uses Obama's likeness
August 10, 2010
By Sam Wood, INQUIRER STAFF WRITER

For the second time in a week, the use of President Obama's image in a carnival game has caused a bit of a kerfuffle.

A crude likeness of the commander in chief is one of several targets featured at a boardwalk game in the Jersey Shore town of Seaside Heights.

Calling the smiling likeness crude is an understatement. Carved with a chainsaw and attached to a foam body, it's a stretch to say it resembles Obama.

But players have been paying $5 for a bucket of balls to throw them at plates held by the caricature. Break a plate and win a prize. The game, called "Walkin Charlie," also features Osama Bin Laden, Michael Jackson, and Stewie from the animated TV series Family Guy.

By late afternoon Monday, the game's creator, Tommy Whalen, said a bag had been put over the Obama figure's head. The presidential target, however, will stay.

"I gotta leave it up just for the hoopla," said Whelen, the manager of Lucky Leo's Amusements which owns the game. "If they're going to keep sending film crews I'm leaving it up."

Whalen, 59, said he didn't mean to offend anyone by adding Obama to the game a month ago. It's all for fun, he said.

"Heck, I voted for the son of a gun," said Whalen. "But I'm not real happy with some of the things going on with the health care issue."

Though he's become a national target of criticism, Whalen has no intention of removing the figure.

"It's not like I have a bull's-eye on his head or on his private business," he said.

Last week, a carnival operator in the Lehigh Valley removed a game in which players shot darts at an image of Obama.

Irvin Good Jr. received a complaint from a Massachusetts woman attending a fair in Roseto, about 20 miles north of Bethlehem, Pa. Good said his company, Hellertown-based Goodtime Amusements, will not offer the game again.

"It was just a big, big mistake in judgment, and I feel sorry about it," Good said.

The game, dubbed Alien Attack, featured a large, painted image of a black man wearing a belt buckle with the presidential seal and holding a scroll labeled "Health Bill." Players could win prizes, including stuffed animals, by hitting targets on the image's head and heart.

Whalen said he's commissioned more political figures for the boardwalk game.

"Hillary Clinton will go up today," he said. "Sarah Palin will be up in a couple of days. She'll have her great big glasses on. She'll be great to throw at."

He's already planning his next batch of targets: cast members from MTV's Jersey Shore, which is filming in Seaside Heights. He hired the chainsaw artist to create a Snooki and Situation.

"Snooki will be 4-foot-7 and wide," said Whalen. "It will be a blast."

+++++++++++++++++++


So, the carnival folks aren't above a little political incorrectness themselves? Especially when there's money to made from it?

Hmmmm... methinketh someone doth protest a little tooo much. :)

As they say in the legal profession, 'those who seek relief through equity must come to equity with clean hands.'


-Kerry O.

KerryO's photo
Thu 04/28/11 05:04 PM
The word IS in the dictionary, after all. And Obama's useage was correct. I find it pretty obvious that the people who are crying 'political correctness' are doing so with crocodile tears. Talk about desperation to get some negative spin!

On the other hand, I can see why someone might get offended at being compared to a Birther.

-Kerry O.

KerryO's photo
Mon 04/25/11 06:19 PM

yay, i dont think he needed a beating, but the problem is anyone who chooses to cross dress or commit a violent crime against a women can now change their clothes and be protected by the law under hate crime protection laws, when in fact they are just a-holes.....

this girl sounded like she thought it was a female hitting on her man and lost control...now he is using his x-gender preference as his defense/and or lawsuit. I really doubt if she thought he was a man in the restroom, then why would she care if he hit on her boyfriend, unless she thought her boyfriend was gay. If she was really committing a hate crime---i doubt she would take on a man, or secondly her boyfriend couldve handled it. thirdly, it was just a jealous fit and she was under the impression it was a female...

And still, its not okay to go around beating the crap out of people..cuz you're mad. that's just lame...


I think most everyone would agree that a restroom could be thought of as a safe space. But in this instance, who was the victim of aggression? Persons with XX chromosomes or XY chromosomes? And what's it say about doing violence just because the perps thought they could hide behind their gender while contending that " 'he' deserved it"?

-Kerry O.

KerryO's photo
Sun 04/24/11 06:20 AM





[
Probability of life forming from inanimate matter? Very high when factored by time.

Just the right time has no meaning when one measures time... Giving the know time that exists 'just the right time' would have occured 'in time'.

Single celled creature would naturally become more comples... over time.

Every one of the questions above can be answered 'in due time'.

Yet God is greater than time...

so I must agree... It is most plausible that there is an intelligent creator of the Universe...




And yet, this allegedly omnipotent creator needs the obedience, worship and money of and from human beings or gets all mad and destroys things in a fit of pique when "He" doesn't get what he wants?

Sounds to me a sock puppet for Believers who simply MUST have only the best Creator in their court.

-Kerry O.


In the top religions of the world god is perceived as a spoiled male of the human species. I wonder why that is? Rhetorically asking of course.


The answer reminds me of a woman-to-woman birthday card I saw about 10 years ago.

Front: It's your birthday. Do whatever you want today. Think only of yourself. Talk only about yourself.

Inside:

You know, act like a guy.


I dunno, patriarchal religions just sit better with most people, I think. I'd guess that most people feel that a female deity would either have to be a soft touch that was way too lenient to be a kick-*** God or a total ***** that would have destroyed the world 50 times over.

-Kerry O.


Well considering that men have been the "root" of all teachings and creating officially since as far back as we have been writing things down and male dominated societies have also been along those same lines it would make sense that women being less and unable to "handle" herself without being controlled would have been the rule of thought.

A woman can be as deadly in a role of power as a man I do believe but it will be a while before we will know that for sure.:wink:



I think it's very telling that Jewish men, to this day, still pray this as part of their morning prayers:



"Blessed are you, Lord, our God, ruler of the universe who has not created me a woman."



Sometimes the prayers will also express similar sentiments about not having been created a gentile or a slave. Other religions have similar male-centric sentiments.

If, as an unbeliever, I had to have a prayer, one part would be to wish for strong, dangerous women with whom to work with in taming the Universe. NOT dominating one's fellow beings.

I contend that one of the pillars of Abrahamic religions in particular is that of a mask for male d0minance games and unbridled ambition thirsting for ultimate power.


-Kerry O.

1 2 8 9 10 12 14 15 16 24 25