Community > Posts By > KerryO

 
KerryO's photo
Fri 12/31/10 03:23 AM

Clements is a national hero, and you're all treating him like a criminal!!


That's what we usually call people who are convicted of felonies. And past military service, meritorious or otherwise, doesn't give Clements a license to dispense Frontier Justice as he sees fit.

-Kerry O.

KerryO's photo
Thu 12/30/10 07:41 PM



No I have never claimed that God is a demon Spider.

What I have said is that if I were to believe in the biblical scriptures I would have no choice but to believe that God is a demon.

And thus I reject those scriptures.

So that's not saying that God is a demon. It's actually saying the opposite.


I'm thinking that most 'scripture' is usually little more than Treehouse Lore used to keep the common riff-raff-- those Unbelievers With Cooties-- from gaining access without going through the requisite rituals of alleigance and spoiling Everything.

Of course, one can always invoke the Simpsons' Treehouse of Terror episodes.... :)


-Kerry O.

KerryO's photo
Thu 12/30/10 07:26 PM

Back when I was a teenager I'd been with married men. Now, at 43 I've gotten myself involved with a man who was in a relationship for 5 years & planned to marry another woman. I met him at work through a childhood friend & we hit it off & moved in together right off the bat. Innitially we just got together out of loneliness. Then it turned into more than we planned on. After 2 months of ignoring his fiance he finally called her tonight & broke it to her that he'd found another woman (me) & wanting to end it. He says I've been what he's wanted all his life. I see the pain he's going through & it's tearing me apart. I'm worried if things doesn't work out with us he'll always blame me for their breakup. He's traveling on the road for work & I've planned on uprooting & going on the road with him. He makes good money, treats me like a queen & I don't have to ask him for a thing. Right now him & my childhood friend are all living under the same roof. He's leaving in a week or so going back home to end it permantly & I'm worried she'll convince him to go back to her. Being the other woman isn't what I planned on but, it happened & now I'm afraid of losing him. He loves both of us & doesn't want to hurt her. But, he knows he can't have us both. Anyone with any experience with this type of relationship? I'm way over my head & don't know where this will end.


They don't call them 'triangles' for nothing. Because everyone has their own angle in these affairs, they often don't end well. People are often too territorial to acquiese without a fight, and there may well be more agendas here that you're counting on.

Besides, he may be playing you both.


-Kerry O.

KerryO's photo
Thu 12/30/10 07:07 PM




The Will County state's attorney indicated it would not appeal county Judge Daniel Rozak's sentence. The attorney's office issued a statement following the ruling:

“Given the serious nature of the crime and the evidence presented at trial, the State’s Attorney’s Office asked the judge for a prison sentence for Charles Clements. After presiding over the trial and hearing all the facts and circumstances, the judge determined that probation was an appropriate sentence. He is an excellent judge and we respect his decision.”

The judge told Clements the slaying wasn't about a dog urinating on a lawn, but "about your reaction ... to being yelled at, pushed and punched in the face by a 23-year-old man," the Tribune reported.

Having repeatedly earned University Park's lawn upkeep award, Clements often verbally harassed anyone who stepped near or on his precious grass, neighbors said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40843342/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts

This is insane!



I suspect Clements is far from being off the hook, though. Funches' family will likely easily prevail in a wrongful death civil suit-- especially given that Clement has been essentially convicted of a felony in regards to the case, the legal doctrine of estoppel will likely prevent Clements from re-visiting argumnts for justifiable homicide.

-Kerry O.

KerryO's photo
Tue 12/28/10 07:12 PM


So, abolishing civil unions would create anarchy? huh

Thinking about this a little more...

Abolishing civil unions would solve the problem of allowing gays to marry as well as the few Mormons who want to practice polygamy. (I have no problem with them marrying....just thinking that it might be easier to eliminate marriage than to change it to allow for different kinds of unions).

However, I guess it really does come down to property issues and money and health insurance. And, those are no small issues. As a society we do benefit from having those rules in place and settlements already decided based on the marriage/divorce laws.


Have a look at this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxims_of_equity


Many of these maxims and their explanations aid in thinking logically about such matters of law. Particularly these :

Equity delights in equality.

One who seeks equity must do equity.

One who comes into equity must come with clean hands.

Equity delights to do justice and not by halves.


-Kerry O.

KerryO's photo
Tue 12/28/10 06:44 PM




CowboyGH said...

Everyone does know it, some choose to ignore what they know and go against what their conscience tells them. Some listen. But nevertheless, everyone does know.


Now come on Cowboy, that's just crazy talk. How can someone know something about the Bible, if they have never read it? If Christianity were so self-evident that everyone knew it to be the truth, there wouldn't be nearly as many non-Christians. The simple fact is Christianity is much maligned and there is a great deal of misinformation about what we believe, which does make some people reject Christianity out of hand. There is also the background noise of thousands of religions out there to add to the confusion.

You are going to turn off a lot of people by telling them that they already know that Christianity is the truth, but are rejecting it.



No, this exchange is a PERFECT example why I 'reject' Christian dogma-- even the two uber Christians on this thread can't agree on something that's supposed to be SO obvious and SO true.

What's obviously true is that is that if there is a God, understanding him eludes even the most faithful. Probably because there is no such certainty and unanimity of 'truth' in what is apparently a human predeliction to want to be the sole owner of The Truth(tm).


-Kerry O.


Well Kerry, here is the problem. CowboyGH is making a claim that isn't supported by scripture.



And how far would I have to go to find another uber Christian who would say the same about _your_ claims?

Take Revelations, for example. It makes so many wild and ambiguous claims that it's no wonder different Christians will say different things about what EXACTLY is being 'revealed'. It's the Texas Sharpshooter effect-- claims are made and bullseyes are painted around them after the fact ( if there are any facts).

-Kerry O.

KerryO's photo
Tue 12/28/10 05:49 PM


CowboyGH said...

Everyone does know it, some choose to ignore what they know and go against what their conscience tells them. Some listen. But nevertheless, everyone does know.


Now come on Cowboy, that's just crazy talk. How can someone know something about the Bible, if they have never read it? If Christianity were so self-evident that everyone knew it to be the truth, there wouldn't be nearly as many non-Christians. The simple fact is Christianity is much maligned and there is a great deal of misinformation about what we believe, which does make some people reject Christianity out of hand. There is also the background noise of thousands of religions out there to add to the confusion.

You are going to turn off a lot of people by telling them that they already know that Christianity is the truth, but are rejecting it.



No, this exchange is a PERFECT example why I 'reject' Christian dogma-- even the two uber Christians on this thread can't agree on something that's supposed to be SO obvious and SO true.

What's obviously true is that is that if there is a God, understanding him eludes even the most faithful. Probably because there is no such certainty and unanimity of 'truth' in what is apparently a human predeliction to want to be the sole owner of The Truth(tm).


-Kerry O.

KerryO's photo
Sun 12/26/10 02:15 PM



As I stated earlier, why bother trying to convert people if God hates them? Why would jesus sacrifice his own life if he hates them?

Does it not say That there is no greater friendship than a man lay down his life for his friends? Jesus did that. When he died on the cross.

So let's see here, if you don't believe the bible, then you can't believe that God is love...and therefor did NOT die for anyone's sin. So then he really must hate us!

Abra states that he TRUST's God! Why trust someone who hate's you?


Why don't you start with the adherents of Judaism? They're already half way there, maybe you could convince them of all this Jesus/New Testament stuff? No? Yes?

Get back to us and let us know how that's workin' fer ya and why...


-Kerry O.

KerryO's photo
Sat 12/25/10 11:16 AM





Fortunately for Unbelievers, Fundies can no longer have the Church's political power imprison or torture them for speaking out against religion's shortcomings.

That's not to say the Dark Ages can't come back, though, if enough people get complacent enough.


-Kerry O.






I think we will roll that way first. The Middle East was the height of power and enlightment, and then it went downhill while Europe was in its Dark Ages. When it went down, Europe went into its Enlightenment. (Relatively speaking since religion was still a problem).

Now it's America's turn to go downhill. UInfortunately, with nuclear armament, it should be interesting if we can keep it only in this country, or if some trigger-fingered religious nut will take out the rest of the world.

IMO!


My goodness...

"Dark Ages" is used by laymen to describe the periods of time in which little was written and for which we lack historical records. Historians use "Early Middle Ages". Modern research into the so called "dark ages" of Europe show that people considered themselves free from religious control then and that there was no actual slowdown in the progress of society. The term "Dark Ages" was coined in the 1300s to describe a period of decline in Latin literature.


"Laymen"? Since when did you become ordained?

And does your Fundamentialist 'research' show that people regularly died at young ages of simple things like dental abscesses.

Seems to me that a truly loving God would have sent texts on general dentistry instead of wierd ramblings like Revelations.

The Church's transgessions during those times hangs like a millstone around its neck. It was only when humans threw off the yoke of superstition that it really started to live up to its potential. Say what you want and spin it anyway you want, but pointing fingers at other religions of the time only solidifies the fact that there are three fingers pointing back at the history of yours.

-Kerry O.

KerryO's photo
Sat 12/25/10 03:36 AM


There's no such thing as sinning unintentionally unless you're claiming to be some sort of zombie.


Sure there is. You see an old lady trying to cross the street, but you drive right by. You should have helped her. You are so caught up in your own problems that you aren't there to be a friend when a friend is down. You should have put your problems aside and helped your friend. etc etc etc


How do you know for sure James doesn't already do that?



Of course you call Christianity and Judaism "absurd"...because James is a rebel! Ohhhh! Nobody has ever done that before.


Fortunately for Unbelievers, Fundies can no longer have the Church's political power imprison or torture them for speaking out against religion's shortcomings.

That's not to say the Dark Ages can't come back, though, if enough people get complacent enough.


-Kerry O.




KerryO's photo
Sat 12/25/10 03:17 AM


So many words, so little thought put into them.



Like I said previously, that which miltant Christians can't refute with logical argument, they arrogantly slander with ad hominem attacks. Thank you for once again falling back on the staple behaviours and proving my point.



I am not responsible for the actions of anyone other than myself and my minor children. To hold me responsible for the actions of a man who died hundreds of years before I was born is illogical. Which goes to prove my point about "intellectual bankruptcy".



Which of course is baloney, because no one was holding your children personally responsible for anything. You ARE however, repsonsible for your words and the causes you enlist in when you use them. It's not at all intellectually bankrupt to point out examples which refute your claims. You can say all you want that you don't think Calvin was a 'True Christian' but you can't deny he flew the same flag and worshipped the same God you do.

I'm just the messenger. Don't like the message? Stick to the message, and do something about it rather than trying to silence the critics with ad hominems.


-Kerry O.

KerryO's photo
Fri 12/24/10 07:31 PM
Edited by KerryO on Fri 12/24/10 07:33 PM



Calvin also burned Jews to death. Maybe...just maybe he was wrong? Do you think? Maybe?


You tell me. He was "one of yours". How could someone so full of the Spirit do such awful things?

Just maybe... maybe..._everyone_ who believes in the Infallible Omniscient godhead who allegedly ghost-writ the Holy Bible is wrong, too? D'ya think? Maybe?

I mean really, you guys have no proofs to offer, just dogged faith in your doctrines and dogmas and a tendency to go after anyone who won't subscribe to said faith with ad hominems.

Or worse. History is replete with examples where Christianity has turned off its moral parity bit error checking so as to 'see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil'-- all while DOING evil in the name of the Almighty.

Free will is an excuse, more like the hangman's mask than some sort of favor Fundy God bestows on humans. Because if he IS testing them with it? Whoo boy, everything's coming up thorns, isn't it?

Maybe?


-Kerry O.

KerryO's photo
Fri 12/24/10 02:28 PM


There is no free will if you believe in god. So that explanation doesn't work.


This again? Really?

Christians make decisions every day. We frequently sin. That is a side effect of free will. We CHOOSE to believe in Jesus. We CHOOSE to try to obey his commandments. We CHOOSE what we do, we aren't puppets. Honestly, I think you guys are so intellectually bankrupt to post this kind of silly nonsense. It's absolutely shameful that adults will actually say these sorts of things. Those are the thoughts of an angry rebellious teenager, not an adult who has spent even a small amount of time thinking about religion. smh


And there _you_ go again-- comparing anyone who doesn't agree with your version of The Truth to nincompoops and 'rebellious' teenager.

Funny thing is, Calvanist Christians have ALWAYS maintained that a soul is pre-destined in the omniscience of the Almighty to be capable of ONLY doing what that omniscience of God already "knows".

It's like having a computer malfunction and 'proving' that it isn't the software by turning off parity error checking.


-Kerry O.

KerryO's photo
Fri 12/24/10 03:26 AM

Hi. I'm an atheist. And I have a vagina.

SURPRISE!


Um, does this mean the treehouse is going to soon get wallpaper treatments?

:)

-Kerry O.

KerryO's photo
Fri 12/24/10 03:17 AM



Free will and God go hand in hand.


And this doctrine is nothing but man extrapolating his own animal nature to the highest power. The rest of the dogma is just to put a more humane veneer on an Old Testament tribal godhead who was often a murderous lunatic who whispered conquest, death and destruction into the ears of the sheep.

And just as even the Great Khans found that you can't conquer the whole world and keep it in subjugation by writ of Terror forever, the New Plan for Humanity was constructed out of a new marketing plan for basic human selfishness.

-Kerry O.

KerryO's photo
Mon 12/20/10 08:40 PM
Everytime you read a militant Christian claiming it's all about what they want for the Unbeliever?

Don't believe it. It's all about THEM. What they believe MUST be believed or they'll "love" you until you do. Even though they don't know the first thing about you, or you are 3 times their age and experience level. Doesn't matter that they don't know an asymptote from a microfissure. They read the Bible and that makes THEM experts on the Universe without the messy college courses in Physics, Biology and Chemistry and YOU a poor dumb sap for wasting your time in pursuit of a better understanding of the physical reality that can be touched, obeys laws that aren't biased towards belief and that take a lot of WORK to understand.

That's what makes me the most uncomfortable being around militant Christians-- they listen with their mouths and call it love. When it's really narcissism.

I guess that's what comes of being too insecure to allow other people to choose a different way of looking at and understanding Life, the Universe and Everything.

-Kerry O.

KerryO's photo
Sat 12/18/10 10:15 PM




i find it incredibly funny and sad that Americans are actually AGAINST universal health care...slaphead


I'm not against it, I'm against paying for it against my will...if i don't need it, why should i pay for it? it is just some bureaucrat with their get rich quick scheme.


So if you don't pay for it, who IS going to pay for it when you all over in the street and go to the ER with a life-threatening illness that you didn't count on? Do you expect to be turned away if you're in so much pain you can't even stand? How civilized is that?

As to the bureaurats reaping a whirlwind of profit, they're all in the insurance companies, opportunistically raising prices something like 40 % on the premise that a few years down the road it will cost more money if we don't do exactly what THEY say.

People have to have car insurance in most states, and no one disputes that's a Good Idea (tm) except the wild-eyed uber-Libertarians who are against anything that offends their notion of their being a Society Of One.


-Kerry O.


It is in fact not a good idea for government to mandate insurance. This is not only piss-poor economics, it is bad ethics. Where does government get the authority for this mandate? It's not in the Federal or any State constitutions. The government certainly does not own us. Where does the money come from to pay for an insurance mandate? The government doesn't pay for it (the government is broke). This passes the burden on to average people.

Bastiat famously observed the "seen versus unseen" costs of government. This applies to everything the government does. In this case, we may "see" the cost of mandated insurance in terms of black and white, raw numbers. What we don't see (among many other things) is the misallocation of capital which could have been used for any number of more useful things. This leaves both society and every individual poorer in terms of both money and utilitarian objects and services. This misallocation ripples through the economy as well. With less capital in the form of savings, less interest is accrued and investment is diminished.

The "broken window" fallacy made famous by Bastiat applies here. In that famous allegory, the glazier with little work to do appeals to the authorities to break windows in order to give him more business. Thus, the authorities begin breaking windows. This makes the glazier gainfully employed and much wealthier, but the owners of the original windows have lost capital for no good reason.

The government can go around breaking proverbial windows with mandates and so forth, but this always comes at the expense of directly and indirectly affected individuals.

Also, "uber-libertarians" like myself (though I call myself a Voluntaryist in order to distance myself from other types of libertarians, mainstream or otherwise) don't advocate "a society of one". This is mostly an Objectivist/Randian theory (aka "Going Galt"). This is different than most stripes of libertarians, who usually argue the primacy of the individual as well as the usefulness of society to the extent that interactions between groups and individuals are voluntary. (we could not have any significant economy without society, after all)



Sorry, that's just a cop out. You only want someone to pay for the cops after the windows are broken-- except when they are YOUR windows. Then you expect to be fully compensated by a system in which you had not one iota of participation. Indeed, one which you've badmouthed until it came time for YOU to get something for nothing.

That's the polar antithesis of what the Galt character in Rand's Atlas Shrugged stood for, asking another man to live and work for benefits one has no inclination of earning-- the 'each according to their needs' scenario that caused Galt to 'quit' society.

This scenario is nothing more than a classic Prisoner's Dilemma, where the people who do the right thing get saddled with the Sucker's Payoff. But sooner of later, the payoff matrix 'learns', and in later iterations, the Suckers demand that the Slackers face the consequences of their habitual freeloading. That's what eventually HAS to happen with healthcare and it won't be pretty.


-Kerry O.

KerryO's photo
Sat 12/18/10 02:34 AM


i find it incredibly funny and sad that Americans are actually AGAINST universal health care...slaphead


I'm not against it, I'm against paying for it against my will...if i don't need it, why should i pay for it? it is just some bureaucrat with their get rich quick scheme.


So if you don't pay for it, who IS going to pay for it when you all over in the street and go to the ER with a life-threatening illness that you didn't count on? Do you expect to be turned away if you're in so much pain you can't even stand? How civilized is that?

As to the bureaurats reaping a whirlwind of profit, they're all in the insurance companies, opportunistically raising prices something like 40 % on the premise that a few years down the road it will cost more money if we don't do exactly what THEY say.

People have to have car insurance in most states, and no one disputes that's a Good Idea (tm) except the wild-eyed uber-Libertarians who are against anything that offends their notion of their being a Society Of One.


-Kerry O.

KerryO's photo
Wed 12/15/10 06:14 PM


God inflicted nothing. You forget we have free will and this world is self governing. Certain things happen because of other certain things, God doesn't make EVERYTHING happen. Yes it is because of God creating the world the things happen, so yeah I guess you could say God makes all things happen. But God does not literally make EVERYTHING happen, such as my car wrech and other tragedies that happen every day.


Again, had I truly had free will regarding my congenital cranial blood vessel anomalies, I most CERTAINLY would have chosen to NOT have had them or the pain and suffering these biological errors caused.

As to the rest of your argument, if I, as an engineer, create something that nearly kills someone, you can bet *I* wouldn't get away with using the same excuse you're making for God.



Remember, the garden of eden? God already tried to create us in a perfect world, man turned away from it, remember? God doesn't tempt anyone, the temptation isn't from God. Again, someone won't appreciate the good if they don't see the bad. They won't know what they have. Ying and yang my friend.



Enh, if the Garden of Eden myth were real, it sure looks like humans were set up to fail. There's nothing inherently evil about simple curiosity-- in fact, it has served the species well. The Garden of Eden myth just doesn't hold water as anything but folklore (see: Women DO NOT HAVE a different number of ribs), and most apologists use it as a sort of Procrustean Bed calibrated to find human nature lacking and worthy of nothing but Authoritarian rule.

And who but prophets and priests step into the void to pick up the mantle of Authoritarians? Why those who know how to control the prophets and priests, rank oppportunists who are as adept at making sock puppets appear as fearsome as they are believable.

If religion were The Monolyth in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey, I suspect the quote at the end would have been "My God, it's full of canards."

-Kerry O.

KerryO's photo
Tue 12/14/10 04:46 PM



How quick you are to make assumptions. I've personally been dead, i've been in a 4.5 month coma, and have to live with the side effects that follow the rest of my life.



As have I and as do I. That in no way means our experiences are equal nor that yours is any kind of proof that the Creator you postulate isn't anything but indifferent to suffering of humans. Or, that in my case, said suffering WASN'T caused by something that was grossly _imperfect_.

Yours?

Oh, no doubt, someeone will say that this Creator had some kind of plan with a higher purpose for visiting these sort of ills. But then I have to ask, what loving parent would be such a sadist to inflict near-death upon their children on the 'theory' that it would make the strong and moral???





You put much credit to the life on this earth. Those people whom did not survive these episodes are blessed and lucky. They no longer have to feel any form of pain, sickness, or anything of such. What's so bad about that? No more emotional or physical pain. Again what's so bad about that?



If that's true, why not just abort after the soul is created and let them avoid all this terrible experience and get whisked right into paradise without all the temptation and sin?




Why do you wish to remain on this earth? Why do you love this earth so much? I personally would much rather just go to heaven to praise our father and not have to deal with sickness, death, pain emotion and or physical. I'd much rather spend my days with no worries and sharing great memories with God and my loved ones. But you can choose what best fits you bro, more power to you.


That sounds like non-life to me. It's all about the journey, not the destination and I'd prefer the Road Less Followed. I'd rather see humankind distill the grapes of its own future godhood than skin its knees in geneflection to the non-existent.


-Kerry O.