pajarito

I think everything should be legal and we should all be on drugs...all the time. We'd all be at peace with the world and with everyone around us. No rules...no laws...you probably wouldn't hurt anybody else...Even if you did hurt somebody else, nobody would care because everybody would be as fucked up as you are. Think about the possibilities... total free-for-all...

Yeah...but how about when you become a burden to society based on your drug addiction? When you run out in front of a car because you're all doped up and don't know what you're doing. When you get dragged into the ER to get patched up on the tax payer's dime. When you sleep with every guy on the block in order to pay for your next hit. When you have babies that you can't take care of so you leave them on other people's doorsteps. When you get so careless that you share needles and transmit diseases to others.

Sorry....I missed that....A.D.D. kicking in again....

How about the Bosnian/Serb conflict? We were defending the Muslims there too.

I think it's got to be both. I don't think you can just spend money on anti-drug educational programs and not also interdict the trafficking and selling of drugs in order to be effective.

Some substances are so destructive, however, that they should be controlled or prohibited by the government. There is a limit to the whole "do whatever you want as long as it doesn't affect someone else" thing. Those people who are so messed up on drugs are a significant burden on society and are not usually productive members of it. It hurt family, friends, and society as a whole.

I agree with Billvon on at least part of this one. I think smoking should be prohibited in any enclosed public place. There's no way that smoking in that instance would just be harming the individual.

Please don't take this as a partisan comment because I don't mean for it to be. Back when I got my license, a DUI wasn't that severe an offense. Don't get me wrong. I think it is now, take it very seriously, and won't do it. Back then, however, I did a lot. I should have gotten a DUI on several occasions. I was let go one night to drive straight home when I was PISS drunk (I emphasize that) by a police officer who happened to be the brother of a guy I went to high school with. Another let me go crossing the bridge leaving Columbus, GA and heading back to Auburn, AL. I could hardly see straight and I had friends in the car with me that night. I've got friends who've had DUI's from back then. Again, I've changed a bunch since then and don't do that kind of stuff anymore but it just wasn't the offense back then as it is now. Now, lying under oath and committing perjury...that's a serious crime! You can't really compare the two. You couldn't even really compare the two if we were talking about a DUI within the last decade. It's still "apples and oranges" IMO. I still think they're both wrong, however, I can't see the two as being equal just because you're tried, convicted, and sent to jail.

Just heard that Iran has agreed to release the British sailors. I say...."good call" on their part. Punk asses!

I could concede that it doesn't belong in a science class but I find it troublesome that it's not taught to students at all and Evolution is taught as a scientific basis even though it is also just a theory. Creation offers an explanation of how everything came into existence which flies in the face of Darwinism and Evolution. You can't prove Creation but it's not even mentioned and kids aren't taught it as a possibility. Maybe I'm wrong. I just know it wasn't brought up to me and I went to a public school. I think it's a shame.

The Bible wasn’t meant to be a science book. The scientific topics that it mentions are presented in a rather rudimentary way due to, as you stated, the limited understanding of the peoples of the time. However, that doesn’t mean that it’s inaccurate or has no purpose today just because it explains something in a very basic way. That just wasn’t its purpose. Science hasn’t replaced religion. It has enhanced it. The contents of the Bible aren’t proved using The Scientific Method. Everything that is true isn’t proved through repeatable demonstrated results. I still haven’t noticed a “flawed understanding of the universe” as long as you keep the stories of the Bible in context. God isn’t measured by our standards. If you think he should be, then you elevate yourself to his level which is the height of arrogance. Again, it’s not for us to judge God. He isn’t subject to our standards. Moses talked to and received answers from “The Burning Bush” which God used to demonstrate himself. Not visa versa. If you’re referring to Samson in the Book of Judges, he used the jawbone of a donkey as a weapon in order to take revenge on the Philistines for burning his wife and father to death. That wasn’t God either. Would you expect that there be no justice in the world? No rules? No consequences for actions? That’s unreasonable and unrealistic. Man attempted to put himself on the same level as God as you are apparently trying to do as well. However, you feel about it, that is not allowed and you will pay the consequences eventually. How do you know? Can you prove it? That’s not the case at my church at all. I’m sorry for any bad experience you might have had in the past. The Bible study class that I attend isn’t comprised entirely of Christians. We’re currently going through a book by C.S Lewis called “Mere Christianity.” No Bible scripture is quoted anywhere in the book. Logic is applied to the principals of Christianity, though. C.S. Lewis is also very much a critical thinker. I believe, for your religion to be worth anything, you must be able to break it down and put it back together again. I’m not afraid of discussing other points of view nor have I been indoctrinated by anyone. I believe you’ve acquired a great bit of knowledge on the subject. I think there’s a difference, however, between knowledge and wisdom. Knowing all the facts but refusing to see the truth.

I knew there were more because my Father-in-law, who was Catholic before he died, told me. I didn't know from memory which ones exactly so I can't verify this list for accuracy. However, I found it on a website. Catholics...correct me if I'm wrong. 7 books found in the Catholic Old Testament that are not part of the Protestant Old Testament. - TOBIT - JUDITH - 1ST BOOK OF MACCABEES - 2ND BOOK OF MACCABEES - THE BOOK OF WISDOM - ECCLESIASTICUS - THE BOOK OF BARUCH - Additional parts of THE BOOK OF DANIEL - Additional parts of the BOOK OF ESTHER

I’m trying to summarize here from your posts: You were alluding that the Biblical text is inaccurate due to its writers displaying characteristics of insanity in an attempt to discredit Christianity. You said that you’d read the Bible, in its entirety and evaluated the mental states of the writers by applying psychological analytical methods. You apply this to the characters, events and plots comparing them to established patterns of behavior, phrases of speech, and actions to illustrate where they exhibit behavior and attitudes that would be classified as neurotic, psychotic, and perhaps even pathological by modern mental behavioral science. You said that these patterns of abnormality can be shown which we would now classify as psychotic tendencies. You said that you learned how to do all of this in college while “dabbling” in courses in addition to the ones required for your major. You also said that the last study you did on a Biblical source was Daniel but that was a long time ago. It would be interesting to see some summary of your work. I’m not requesting that you mail a copy to me of your study. I’d just like to see some specifics. I do have some questions up front, however. - If you read the Bible at your Grandmother’s request when you were younger, did you also read it critically in its entirety by the terms you mentioned? - How do you accurately compare what is normal today with what was normal from ~500B.C. (in reference to Daniel) and, based on that, declare that someone from that time displayed the abnormal tendencies that you mentioned? By the way, I have read Daniel but, as with your studies, it was many years ago.

Have you? You said earlier: “The last actual paper I did on a biblical source was Daniel, quite a while ago, but I’ll see if I can find it for you if your really interested. Might have to mail it to you though i dont think i have it softcopy anywhere...” It does sound like you’ve taken a class on the subject, though. I have not read through the entire Bible. Most of the New Testament. I’ve only read a few of the Old Testament books. I’m working on Kings now. Like I said before, I’m not a Theologian nor am I personally a textual critic. I’m also not a Psychologist. I’ve only read the works of others who are experts in the field. I usually quote from other’s research which is compelling to me. I don’t claim that it is my own. I don’t have to have done the research myself. Again, not the entire Bible. Have you read the entire Bible and critiqued each book? You’re assuming that I rely on movies and that is also inaccurate. If the God of my Bible is correct, then all others cannot be and, therefore, he cannot be accurately represented in their religious texts. Quotewould you like a list of the human emotional and failings exhibited by your "God" as written in your literature? (more in the OT than the NT is better edited more unified creation) we could start with Anger and Jealousy... [/reply Only if you consider those to be emotional failings on the part of God in those instances. I don’t. I believe it demonstrates his personal involvement and immeasurable love for us all. I’m going out to eat. Later.

I've been accused of making blanket statments and generalizations before but I think you're worse than I am.

Not true at all. I don't know where you arrive at that conclusion about me. If you've read any of my posts, you'd realize that evidence is very important to me. I did not make my decision until several years of looking hard at the evidence. I wasn't brought up in any faith and didn't make a decision until 1998 and I'm 35. Don't confuse me with someone with "blind faith."

Careful, god might here you I don't care......end it......now........ "Oh...the horror......."

AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH... I can't stop..........kill me........please............ Must stop...............must....... stop...............

I think it would be easier just to be clear and attack the idea and not the person. That's just me.

Maybe so…but you’re the one that brought up Methodism as if that would somehow boost your credibility in my opinion in reference to your level or quality of higher education. Catholics include more books in their Bible. They accept more source material than Protestants. Also, there are both liberal and more conservative denominations and denominational splits which may or may not believe completely in the “divinely inspired word of God. You can’t lump sum us all together. No need to send a copy of your paper to me…really. You’d have to go a long way to convince me, and I think most people, that the writers of the Bible were insane or displayed psychotic tendencies. I don’t believe the evidence shows that.

I agree. Stop the maddness!.....

FIRST: SECOND: (Correction) I think you directed that at me by using the wording “you.” Not “belief.” I could be wrong, though. At any rate….”bu-buy.”

Catholics are also Christian. I’m not Catholic. There’s a LOT of difference. Ok. So you can prove through your studies that the writers of the Biblical text were insane? That might be an interesting read. I’d like to see some of your work on the subject. I made reference to communication methods but I didn’t bring up the topic of insanity.

“Under Jesus” would be the endorsement of Christianity. “Under God” could be any god including the Christian one. When I was in Afghanistan, an Afghani who worked for us was murdered. He was also a good friend. Most of my team was invited inside the Mosque in the middle of town for a memorial service. We later also attended the burial on the other side of town. We went to the Mosque out of respect for our friend and followed their traditions to the letter. Except, when they prayed to Allah, those of us who were Christians remained silent. I personally don’t believe in praying for the dead so I didn’t (I’m not Catholic). I just sat there quietly and participated in everything that didn’t involve me praying to Allah. I wasn’t offended and I didn’t feel uncomfortable even though I was one of the very few white people in the whole town. I was also not pressured in the slightest to do so.

And it doesn't. Pertaining to the Pledge...it doesn't.