100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
Topic:
Why?
|
|
The bible tells us that God is a He. So here's a question. Why is God a He? The Christian belief that Christ was God walking the earth intrigues me. If Christ was God,and Christ Died for three days... Does it follow that God Died for three days? Is it even conceivable that God Died for three days? And if God Did Die for three days Who the Hell[pun intended]was Running the Universe? Also,when Christ prayed to the father Was he talking to Him self? If each of us Perceive differently creating a unique subjective individual reality Does that mean there are Seven Billion Gods? And Finally I was walking through a forest A tree fell right in front of me I didn't hear it The religion of the Bible has had 2000 years to weave chainmail against the arguments for unbelief. When you think of it, the enigmas and paradoxes that are its cloak really aren't any more profound than such statements as "You're unique, just like everyone else" or "What is the sound of one hand clapping." The real hard work is thinking about your place in the grand scheme of things and using those answers to do something to make things better-- not just for yourself, but for those who come after you. And so far, religion has performed that task rather miserably because it purports to do all the thinking (work) for you. If you don't do the work, you'll never understand, and that which you do not understand in this universe can frequently cause you harm, however indirectly. -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But it seems like every day another musician, actor, wrestler, athlete or polititian dies. And so do a lot of regular people who do the unglamorous work of keeping the world moving that you'll never see here in these posts. In any civilization, you can always tell when the Visigoths are at the gate waiting to sack it-- it's when the Bread and Circuses syndrome becomes the rule, not the exception. People REALLY need to get a divorce from The Fox News Glass Teat and read a book instead. "You'll pay to know what you REALLY think." -- The Rev.Bob Dobbs -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“corporations are people.” If so, why isn't Enron sharing a cell with Bernie Madoff? But hey, I guess now some GOPers can say 'Some of my best friends are corporations' and none will be the wiser. Unless of course, two same-sex corporations try to get together or corporations start having abortions... -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Democratic Party's platform is more of a totalitarian platform than a liberal platform. It's unfortunate that Republicans allowed the Democratic party to redefine the words "left", "right", "liberal" and "conservative". It's so bad that people actually think that Liberal and Conservative are opposites on the political spectrum! I'm a Republican and I'm easily one of the most liberal people you'll ever meet. Liberals love liberty and I loves me some liberty. I don't see the Democratic party supporting liberty on just about any front other than sex and drugs and then, their support isn't based on principles or reason, but simply cold political calculation. So, would you care to explain the cold, hard, calculating truth behind this Ann Coulter quote about Social Security? And of course there are the 39 million greedy geezers collecting Social Security. The greatest generation rewarded itself with a pretty big meal. -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And you mention that the Democrats consider "Retirement Security" an issue, but don't mention it for Republicans, when they have been trying to get the system overhauled since the 80's. It doesn't matter how much Democrats consider "Retirement Security" an issue, if they don't have any plans to prevent Social Security and Medicare from going bankrupt. How soon they forget people like Rick Santorum (he and his cheering section wanted to 'fix' Social Security by eliminating it) and GWB claiming that his 2004 election was a 'mandate' to privatize Social Security. The American People knew all too well what would have happened had GBW gotten his way and Wall St. gotten their mitts on the funds. Quick--- tell me what you would have now if you'd been fully invested in Lehman Bros or Bear Stearns? Republicans grabbed 'the 3rd rail' of Social Security in 2006 and got, as GWB put it, 'a thumpin'. -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why do some conservatives go around claiming that those who believe differently than them hate America? They're not smart enough to see the irony in their screeds and it's easier than actually constructing arguments out of points and counterpoints. In short, they have absolutely NO regard for the political process and they don't have the numbers to force their beliefs to become the law of the land. So instead, they engage in namecalling and slander. And when that's ALL one does, one can't really be blamed for trying anything new or that calls for some sacrifice. -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
God is not the boss of me.
|
|
I guess it depends upon how one defines 'boss' When I go to work, I still have free will AND a boss,, they can coincide if I am understanding boss to be : a person who exercises control or authority; specifically : one who directs or supervises workers we have the 'free will' to respect/honor the authority that is there but not honoring it doesnt change its authority for instance, If my 'boss' asks me to be at work at 7 am every morning or else lose my job, I can choose not to honor his authority(free will), but the consequence will be losing my job we can exercise free will, even when it comes to authority, but with free will comes the consequences of , as the court would say, 'knowing the difference' between what we should have done and what we decided to do,,,, In that case though, you have a JOB, and what you do has a direct bearing on that, so the consequences are just, make sense and are clearly defined. The Biblical and religious consequences however don't fit that criteria and have no basis in reality at all. It makes no sense that a loving God would give us free will and then not let us use it in effect. What would be the point? Im only pointing out that having a 'boss' does not negate having 'free will' Free will though is NOT "obey me or I'll let you die" that's what the Biblical idea of it is. do you know of anyone that will not or has not died? letting people die is just a fact of life, whether we call it nature or God it still does not negate free will why we are living,,, Religious dogma shoots itself in the foot pretty well on its own. The doctrine of Free Will is just more dogma to get the dogma of an omniscient, omnipotent God who practices predestination off the hook. If God makes all things, knows how they will turn out and what they will do, how can those so made be anything but puppets dancing on the strings of that dogma. Their predestination is assured, lest they show this God to be out of control of his own creations and not knowing that which the dogma of his followers assures us he does. Then there's the problem of evil. Free Will is the scapegoat that let's God's Will off the hook as the omnipotent ghost writer of the evil that he allows. -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
KerryO
on
Thu 08/04/11 06:04 PM
|
|
I think some women are very attractive. Attracted to them as in wanting to be in a relationship with them? No. i had a friend once that said he had a man crush on tony romo, and i never understood what that meant. i myself see some men as good looking, but i could never be anything more than friends with them. but with the friend i was talking about, it was more of a respect deal than anything else, so i have wondered if being gay was an extension of this, where it is a want to get what you like rather than a love or sex type thing. I doubt it. I'm pretty sure gay people feel love and have sexual desires just like anyone else. i can believe that about gay women, i've seen the love between two women before, and they very rarely cheat on each other from what i've seen, but i really doubt it with men. 95% of the gay men i know are just sex hounds, thinking they have a relationship and cheating every chance they get. It goes with both genders in both types of relationships. Hetero men say they love dearly those that they cheat on. So no difference there. Yeah, I like the excuse they give when busted for it-- "You know she didn't mean anything to me...." Sound a little like what some posters are saying about the promiscuity of gay male relationships? But hey, the gay guys had a choice, the hetero guys were on autopilot. -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From the NY Daily News.... Some neighbors said Falkingham sometimes wears a tutu with the suit. Falkingham told cops that "he enjoys wearing the suit," but he understood his neighbors' concerns. At least one neighbor, Deborah Colson, has hopped to Falkingham's defense. "He's got the bunny outfit, a cowboy suit and a ballerina dress but you don't see him except where he's tripping through his backyard," she said. "He's never done anything wrong but wear his little suits in the background," she said. "He's got a strange lifestyle at home but we all do weird things at home. It makes me so sad: people don't even do anything and they get laughed at." Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/08/03/2011-08-03_idaho_police_tell_man_he_cant_wear_his_bunny_suit_in_public_because_it_scares_ch.html#ixzz1U3awUIrj  Laugh while you can! This could very well lead to his sneaking into Idaho airports dressing in that bunny costume while trying to pick up Congressmen. Or shooting wolves from helicopters in Sarah Palin drag. Or even :gasp: burning flags in back yard dressed as Betsy Ross. Look at the effect this had on Wall St. today! -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What do you mean the PT-109 incident was influenced by his father? I read that it was pretty accurate, including the books and movie. Oh, I don't think anyone is saying that Kennedy didn't do some amazing things in that incident, but he also did some things that weren't up to military muster that helped cause the incident, too. I read about it in the last issue of 'The Quarterly Journal of Military History'. I think the article posted here: http://www.historynet.com/pt-109-disaster.htm ... is the same one I read. If you read it, you'll find out why his squadron called him "Crash Kennedy", and why many graduates of Annapolis called the PT boat crews "The Hooligan Navy". You'll also read how Joe Kennedy's influence with journalists and how a chance meeting with John Hershey (author of Hiroshima) helped bring the incident into the public eye. Also, how Kennedy was actually classified unfit for duty for health reasons, but again how his father's influence help to get him into the officer's corps. Again, not to detract from JFK's bravery, it just tells the rest of the story. -Kerry O.  One also can't call JFK's resolve during the Cuban Missile Crisis into question, either. I lived through that, too, and it made the current debt ceiling crisis look like a day in the park. People were actually spending bunches of money constructing bomb shelters in their back yards and the schools were doing 'duck and cover' drills during school hours regularly. Not that they would have done any good if an airburst happened nearby... -Kerry O. I had to do nuclear drills in school too. Bomb shelters were still popular in the early 70s. But it was when I got to high school when it dawned on me the only safe place from a nuclear blast is as far away from it as you can get. Just the shockwave alone can kill people in their bunkers. Fact is SAC NORAD is supposed to be nuke proof and that is a fallacy! the thing is Russia did not want an exchange like that with us. They really didn't want a war with us. it was all politics. There weren't stupid and Nikita Kruschev paid a heavy price meted out to him by his own Communist Party for the Cuban Missile Crisis. I can't remember the book which contained it-- probably 'The Prisoner's Dilemma' by William Poundstone-- but it pointed out the the arms race in the early 50's was largely fearmongering and playing nuclear poker, because the Russians just did not have that much fissile material and enough bomb cores to make MAD stick if a 'shooting war' broke out. Of course, no one knew that at the time... -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What do you mean the PT-109 incident was influenced by his father? I read that it was pretty accurate, including the books and movie. Oh, I don't think anyone is saying that Kennedy didn't do some amazing things in that incident, but he also did some things that weren't up to military muster that helped cause the incident, too. I read about it in the last issue of 'The Quarterly Journal of Military History'. I think the article posted here: http://www.historynet.com/pt-109-disaster.htm ... is the same one I read. If you read it, you'll find out why his squadron called him "Crash Kennedy", and why many graduates of Annapolis called the PT boat crews "The Hooligan Navy". You'll also read how Joe Kennedy's influence with journalists and how a chance meeting with John Hershey (author of Hiroshima) helped bring the incident into the public eye. Also, how Kennedy was actually classified unfit for duty for health reasons, but again how his father's influence help to get him into the officer's corps. Again, not to detract from JFK's bravery, it just tells the rest of the story. -Kerry O. One also can't call JFK's resolve during the Cuban Missile Crisis into question, either. I lived through that, too, and it made the current debt ceiling crisis look like a day in the park. People were actually spending bunches of money constructing bomb shelters in their back yards and the schools were doing 'duck and cover' drills during school hours regularly. Not that they would have done any good if an airburst happened nearby... -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, I thought you were more my age.......... No, I only _look_ your age. :) Finally, this damn baby face of mine is paying dividends. My profile lists my accurate birth year. I actually agree with Garrisons trial points he brought up. The fact the the person he tried Claw Shaw and his witness who dies before testifying David Ferrie were both confirmed to work for the CIA by the CIA director in the late 79's early 80's after Shaw died. I think Garrison was right on the money for the most part. Well, one thing is for certain-- the Kennedy's sure made a lot of enemies. so who can say that there isn't more than what was in the Warren report? And I in no way flatly dismiss Garrison's theories as I do those of the Truthers and the Birthers. I just don't think he got close enough to make a breakthrough, something that could make all the dominoes fall in a predictable fashion. Some things we'll never know, I guess. -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
KerryO
on
Mon 08/01/11 06:10 PM
|
|
What do you mean the PT-109 incident was influenced by his father? I read that it was pretty accurate, including the books and movie. Oh, I don't think anyone is saying that Kennedy didn't do some amazing things in that incident, but he also did some things that weren't up to military muster that helped cause the incident, too. I read about it in the last issue of 'The Quarterly Journal of Military History'. I think the article posted here: http://www.historynet.com/pt-109-disaster.htm ... is the same one I read. If you read it, you'll find out why his squadron called him "Crash Kennedy", and why many graduates of Annapolis called the PT boat crews "The Hooligan Navy". You'll also read how Joe Kennedy's influence with journalists and how a chance meeting with John Hershey (author of Hiroshima) helped bring the incident into the public eye. Also, how Kennedy was actually classified unfit for duty for health reasons, but again how his father's influence help to get him into the officer's corps. Again, not to detract from JFK's bravery, it just tells the rest of the story. -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What a miserable choice to have to make just to please others all your life. There is no way that a gay person should marry someone of the opposite sex and live a lie, It is wrong on all levels. I never said what they should or shouldn't do. I was merely saying its their choice. Who are you to say they shouldn't marry the opposite sex if that is what they want? I am saying no matter if you or gay or not your relationship is your choice. How would you feel if you had gotten married, then found out your wife was gay, but felt she needed to pretend to be straight to live a normal life? How would that make it not her choice? I am not arguing what is right or wrong just that it is a choice. Are you denying that it would be her choice? You could also choose to call yourself Houdini. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, I'm just saying you'd be making a choice. Apropos of nothing, but one good turn of the 'Persuasive Definition' fallacy deserves another. -Kerry O. So people don't chose who they date? There is no fallacy in saying you chose who you date. I find it no different than people who chose to date inter-racially or not. Some people find other races attractive but still chose not to date them for whatever reason. Some don't care and will date any race. It is a choice. Some people are bi sexual and the can go both ways and they still make a choice. You are just trying to discredit me because you can't discredit what I say. I agree attraction is not a choice but actions are. No actually, I'm choosing to discredit what you say, not you personally. You're choosing to take it personally. I'm using your own logic against your ARGUMENTS, and you're choosing to read more into it than that and to not like it. You could just choose to agree with me, and you could choose to drop the semantic charades. :) -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the REAL reason the government prevented widescreen TVs from coming to the market for so long was so they had the time and the technology to doctor the Zapruder film of JFK's assassination. If we'd have had widescreens back in '63, EVERYONE could have seen the muzzles flashes from the grassy knoll. -Kerry O. "It never hurts to be paranoid, but one always has to ask themselves-- 'Am i being paranoid enough'?" The Kennedy deal leave way to many questions un-answered. It is I think the only conspiracy I believe in. I was mostly kidding, but I agree that there were unanswered questions. I saw Ruby gun down Oswald live on TV-- I still remember the unbelief expressed by people in the room with me at how all this stuff was happening. Still, I think the Warren Commission was pretty thorough and wonder if the unanswered questions were really relevant, much less answerable. After all this time, nothing much has surfaced-- no deathbed confessions, et al. I recently read some insider information on how story surrounding the PT-109 incident was influenced by the JFK's father. See, that's the kind of stuff that comes to light after a lot of years, and shows who had what to gain and how they did it. I'm not sure that the same could be said of the JFK assassination conspiracy. -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
most of them know more than the experts, if they even watch it, so nothing will really change with the truthers... they spent the last tens whining and crying about this, so to have their world torn apart won't happen... to bad they won't see it with an open mind, but will try to pick it apart.... Those against it are just as guilty if not more so if you ask me. They just keep spouting government rhetoric like they know better, when really they know nothing of what they think. oh yea, it was me, i planned it all... me and george had a bet, and i won a dollar...insanity at its best...  BTW, you just proved everything i just said, and you didn't even know it...  Not really, but if that's what makes you sleep better at night so be it. The truth will be known eventually, how you feel about it means little. Well, the REAL reason the government prevented widescreen TVs from coming to the market for so long was so they had the time and the technology to doctor the Zapruder film of JFK's assassination. If we'd have had widescreens back in '63, EVERYONE could have seen the muzzles flashes from the grassy knoll. -Kerry O. "It never hurts to be paranoid, but one always has to ask themselves-- 'Am i being paranoid enough'?" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What a miserable choice to have to make just to please others all your life. There is no way that a gay person should marry someone of the opposite sex and live a lie, It is wrong on all levels. I never said what they should or shouldn't do. I was merely saying its their choice. Who are you to say they shouldn't marry the opposite sex if that is what they want? I am saying no matter if you or gay or not your relationship is your choice. How would you feel if you had gotten married, then found out your wife was gay, but felt she needed to pretend to be straight to live a normal life? How would that make it not her choice? I am not arguing what is right or wrong just that it is a choice. Are you denying that it would be her choice? You could also choose to call yourself Houdini. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, I'm just saying you'd be making a choice. Apropos of nothing, but one good turn of the 'Persuasive Definition' fallacy deserves another. -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What a miserable choice to have to make just to please others all your life. There is no way that a gay person should marry someone of the opposite sex and live a lie, It is wrong on all levels. I never said what they should or shouldn't do. I was merely saying its their choice. Who are you to say they shouldn't marry the opposite sex if that is what they want? I am saying no matter if you or gay or not your relationship is your choice. How would you feel if you had gotten married, then found out your wife was gay, but felt she needed to pretend to be straight to live a normal life? Oh, probably you'll get the answer that they expect gay men and lesbians to pair off. That way 'god' gets a two-for-one and the American Taliban have saved the world again. -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
distinguishing words 'conscious choice' there are conscious and subconscious choice,, but they are still choice subconscious choices just are harder to pinpoint when it comes to their 'origin' ,,, example hamburger or big mac (conscious choice) gluttonous eating (subconscious choice) , because the food represents something that you have learned to associate with a desired feeling or emotion,,,etc,, Word lawyering at its finest. You claimed you never heard of the APA's stance on this, and now that you HAVE heard of it and don't like it, you're attempting to play word games and claim that you know what goes on in the subconscious minds of gay people. As I stated previously, 'choice' is just a code word in the religious perspective on homosexuality for 'immoral'. If you're going to buy into the whole religious sexuality gambit, why not admit that as far as the most religious people are concerned, heterosexual oral sex is also forbidden. Oh, and then go to the 'Sex' forum here on Mingle and warn all the sinners about that. :) -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I never said what they should or shouldn't do. I was merely saying its their choice. Who are you to say they shouldn't marry the opposite sex if that is what they want? I am saying no matter if you or gay or not your relationship is your choice. Just like straight folks who adhere to God's word. If, they aren't married, they stay away from sexual relations til they are married. A homosexual who knows and practices God's word can stay homosexual and could "make the choice" to never enter into same-sex relations. Thus preacheth the heterosexuals, who, as we all know, practice God's word faithfully to the letter--- except the part where it says "What God has joined together, let no man set asunder." Holy Matrimony! Last time I checked, there was a lot of 'asundering' going on in the courts of Man-- about 2/3rds of them, give or take. Stones, anyone? -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
