|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/07/2004 09:23:41 PM · #201 |
Originally posted by ericlimon:
Originally posted by paganini:
Where's the proof that gays are not choosing to be gays and is genetic in the first place?
Assuming they are genetic.... they serve no purpose in procreating the next generation. All animals goal in the world is surival and to procreate and extend the species survival chances. So if you're not part of that, then it's not the norm. It's simple science.
Until gays can asexually reproduce (reproduction without sex or without sperm, i.e. by themselves), they're basically people with genetic disorder by any scientific definition. TO say that they're normal is against all scientific evidence on the basic law of nature: survival of the fittest -- which means, survival of your species, which means, being able to procreate and extend the life of the species. Gays are obviously incapable of reproduction naturally (i haven't seen two men able to have a baby by themselves).
If 100% of the population is gay, humans are doomed, aren't we? :)
Originally posted by ericlimon:
[quote=paganini]There absolutely no proof that gays are "natural" by any definition of the word. At best, they're people with genetic diseases, at worst, they're people in need of psychological help. |
since you are online,
explain this statement for me. |
|
Um, well...
as far as I know, gay people can reproduce, but they are not attracted to members of the opposite sex. So, tell me then, if being gay is "some sort of genetic disease", then if a gay man and a gay woman have a child together, then they give the child up for adoption to some straight couple, will that child carry the "diseased" genes of his/her parents and therefore grow up to be gay?
What happens if you have a child who grows up to be gay? Does it mean that you are a carrier of this "genetic disorder"?
Curious huh?
I'm bumping this cause I want a response from paganini.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2004 09:27:15 PM · #202 |
Guns is such a cynical view of life. I hate them, personally. Why not teach people self defense instead, and how to get out of a situation, or teach conflict resolution? Imo, it would save a lot more lives than guns would. The more guns the more violence and the more intolerance. Before you know it, we're back to the days of lynch mobs, vigilante groups and witch hunts. I guess guns are needed by paranoid people.
Message edited by author 2004-11-07 21:31:20. |
|
|
|
11/07/2004 09:32:28 PM · #203 |
Originally posted by paganini:
By the way, people do hunt with handguns - obviously judith doesn't nkow that :) |
You're right, never heard of anyone hunting with a handgun. I grew up in the city, where people didn't hunt. Now, however, I live in the country where everyone owns a rifle or a shotgun (most folks own more than one of each), and I still have never run into anyone who uses a handgun to hunt. So to be on the safe side before responding to your post, I asked my husband about it, who grew up in Texas and was a hunter his whole life. He told me that most people can't hit the side of a barn from 20 feet with a handgun, so he thinks your claim is ridiculous.
If it's true that terrorists are procuring weapons at gun shows, it would seem to me that at the very least a background check might be appropriate!
In any event, your attitude toward gays says it all. What it's really all about is that you can't stand anyone who doesn't look like you, talk like you, think like you, vote like you, f*ck like you, smell like you, and worship like you. Have you taken a good look in the mirror lately? You might see a turbanned Saudi Arabian Muslim extremist (in Christian clothes, of course) staring back.... |
|
|
|
11/07/2004 10:34:24 PM · #204 |
Let's not get religion in to this debate, but if you must, God also says you're not supposed to lie with mankind, nor woman with womankind as well in the first testament. Funny how some people choose to read one but not the other.
If gays are genetic, then it is a disorder. I am not advocating of "fixing it" but to say that someone with a disorder should have the same rights of marriage is ludicrous. The sole purpose of marriage is to have children and form a family. Gays are incapable of the deed. Yes, they can adopt, but a child growing up with two fathers will have much more of an issue than a child growing up in a family witha man and a woman.
Liberals like to re-define morality and values. They like to say moral values is for "universal healthcare" or "living wage", etc. But moral value is about the family unit for the most part in ANY religion, whether it's christianity, judaism, islam, buddhist, hindu, etc. (i am not talking about teh Hollywood leftist view of Buddhism which tends to be some sort of a religion that you can do whatever you want - i am talking about Buddhism as it is practiced by normal people. And even Buddhism are "pro-life" and anti-abortion -- they consider animal life to be sacred, they'd protect all life in general, not just the woman's right to "choose").
The fact is, this country is conservative in social values, it is conservative fiscally. If Democrats don't address the needs of the middle america, which by the way, most of the people by LANDMASS are Republican (look at the electoral map), they'll never win an election on the presidential scale any time soon.
Originally posted by ericlimon:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Actually, the best argument that homosexuals are "the way they are" is that God made them that way, as He made everything ... who are you (or me) to then question His purpose in doing so? Since God is acknowledged to be unknowable, to profess the ability to divine God's thoughts and intentions strikes me as an assumption of prophethood -- a risky occupation in any era, traditionally leading to a painful demise in this temporal sphere, with only your faith in a perpetual existence "beyond" as a redeeming feature. |
read Mark 12:28-31 where it says:
One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?"
"The most important one," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.'
The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these."
So Therefore: you must love gay men as you love yourself
(according to God and the good Lord Jesus Christ) |
|
|
|
|
11/07/2004 10:43:21 PM · #205 |
Another liberal lie -- background checks are DONE at gun shows. However, if individiuals sell to individuals, no background checks are required. This is the law of the land. Federally licensed gun dealers MUST have background checks and since 99.999% of the gun transactions at gun shows are via dealers, this is really a moot point.
Judith, you last paragraph says it all about liberals. You can't have a rational discussion without calling people names. Liberals claim to be accepting of everyone but once the facts are made, they then call you a bigot, a liar, a racist, a homophobe, you name it.
I can care less who you f*ck, what God you believe, what you vote. I do care when you try to shuffle your freaking values of reducing family values to a heap of mule dung down my throat.
People do hunt with handguns -- most hunters can't do it but there are those who can. Besides, this is a moot point as Second Amendment is about rights of individuals to ownfirearms, period, not about hunting.
As far as your comment insinuating that I am some sort of racist by saying "don't look like you", I am Asian, by the way. I know all about racism, so don't you ever call me a racist. I was a liberal, when I was young, but i outgrew that. unfortunately there are still few people that can't grow out of it. The fact is, liberals are often the most racist bunch out of the whole country. Why? they immediately discriminate against you once you don't agree with them.
It's rather sad to see that people who are born in this country don't even understand American values. it's about individual rights, it's not about some collective utopian society that some liberal elitist dreamt up in some Star Trek sort of way. I wouldn't trample your rights to sleep with a dog but I would definitely be against your efforts to force gay marriage or beastiality marriage down our throats. Keep that crap in California where it belongs.
Tony
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by paganini:
By the way, people do hunt with handguns - obviously judith doesn't nkow that :) |
You're right, never heard of anyone hunting with a handgun. I grew up in the city, where people didn't hunt. Now, however, I live in the country where everyone owns a rifle or a shotgun (most folks own more than one of each), and I still have never run into anyone who uses a handgun to hunt. So to be on the safe side before responding to your post, I asked my husband about it, who grew up in Texas and was a hunter his whole life. He told me that most people can't hit the side of a barn from 20 feet with a handgun, so he thinks your claim is ridiculous.
If it's true that terrorists are procuring weapons at gun shows, it would seem to me that at the very least a background check might be appropriate!
In any event, your attitude toward gays says it all. What it's really all about is that you can't stand anyone who doesn't look like you, talk like you, think like you, vote like you, f*ck like you, smell like you, and worship like you. Have you taken a good look in the mirror lately? You might see a turbanned Saudi Arabian Muslim extremist (in Christian clothes, of course) staring back.... |
|
|
|
|
11/07/2004 10:45:34 PM · #206 |
| Lay off the personal attacks, please. |
|
|
|
11/07/2004 10:48:07 PM · #207 |
Interesting you mentioned self defense -- a guy taht knows how to use a knife and coming at you with it, is as deadly as a guy with a gun. I'd like to see how you deal with a guy with a knife without a firearm. The fact is, a shotgun in an average homeowner is much better as a self-defense mechanism than martial arts, as in order for you to use martial arts as a self-defense mechanism, you have to be talented and good at it.
Lynch mobs? Geez wiz. So that you mentioned it -- you do realize that back in the days of lynch mobs, the SOuth was predominantly DEMOCRATIC? ;^) there, case closed. The South was Democratic controlled and it was REPUBLICANS that sided with Lyndon Johnson in the South for racial integration. Funny how all that has been twisted around. Remember, Republicans are the party of Lincoln.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Guns is such a cynical view of life. I hate them, personally. Why not teach people self defense instead, and how to get out of a situation, or teach conflict resolution? Imo, it would save a lot more lives than guns would. The more guns the more violence and the more intolerance. Before you know it, we're back to the days of lynch mobs, vigilante groups and witch hunts. I guess guns are needed by paranoid people. |
|
|
|
|
11/07/2004 10:56:54 PM · #208 |
On the issue of whether genetics can be passed from gay person to the next or from non-gay to gays -- i have never said I believe that gays are based on genes. Some people do, but what I said was, IF it is genetic, than it's a genetic disorder, it's not the norm. And IF it is genetic, than yes, someone who have a child who is gay, is then carrying that gene. Until the day where the gene can be identify to separate homosexuality from hetersexuality, I'd contend that it is mostly a lifestyle/psychological choice. A behavioral issue. There still is no conclusive proof one way or the other, so just leave it at that. Either case, to grant someone with either a behavior problem or genetic disorder the same rights for marriage is just ludicrous. There is a reason why marriage was defined as between men and women for 5000 years of human history, you know... it's to preserve the family unit.
Why are we arguing about this anyway? The voters clearly said they're against gay marriage beacuse it will destroy family unit. We already have enough of a divorce problem in this country. Democrats need to address the conservative voters in the midwest or else they'll never win another election in the presidential level.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2004 11:07:38 PM · #209 |
The solution to the librtal agenda is simple: put up your ideas on the table and try to bring change by the will of the people rather than by activist judges.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2004 11:10:52 PM · #210 |
You have to be equally adept at using a gun, which is much more deadly and if not used with extreme confidence, skill and the willingness to shoot to kill, you could wind up being the victim instead.
My opinion is that many who do not want gun control are really hiding behind the argument of self defense, but their aim is to use it for offensive and coercive purposes instead. What freedoms do guns guarantee you that you wouldn't have without them? It can't be to protect yourself or community from tyrannical governments in this day and age.
Originally posted by paganini:
Interesting you mentioned self defense -- a guy taht knows how to use a knife and coming at you with it, is as deadly as a guy with a gun. I'd like to see how you deal with a guy with a knife without a firearm. The fact is, a shotgun in an average homeowner is much better as a self-defense mechanism than martial arts, as in order for you to use martial arts as a self-defense mechanism, you have to be talented and good at it.
Lynch mobs? Geez wiz. So that you mentioned it -- you do realize that back in the days of lynch mobs, the SOuth was predominantly DEMOCRATIC? ;^) there, case closed. The South was Democratic controlled and it was REPUBLICANS that sided with Lyndon Johnson in the South for racial integration. Funny how all that has been twisted around. Remember, Republicans are the party of Lincoln.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Guns is such a cynical view of life. I hate them, personally. Why not teach people self defense instead, and how to get out of a situation, or teach conflict resolution? Imo, it would save a lot more lives than guns would. The more guns the more violence and the more intolerance. Before you know it, we're back to the days of lynch mobs, vigilante groups and witch hunts. I guess guns are needed by paranoid people. |
|
|
|
|
|
11/07/2004 11:24:20 PM · #211 |
Tony,
So how do you explain the acceptance of the sanctity of marriage being denigrated on the myriad marriage-related 'reality' shows out there? Is this portraying marriage in a positive light? Nobody seems to care about this, though. I don't buy the family values argument here at all. I still think it boils down to a general anti-gay sentiment.
You're oversimplifying the Democrat standpoint a little here I think. I'm Canadian, so don't participate in your system, but we Canadians have accepted gay marriage, and yet have roughly a 45% divorce rate vs the US 49% (read: we accept gay marriage AND value marriage more than you seem to). We also marry a bit older. We have guns but we don't shoot people. I come from a house with enough guns to outfit a platoon, including handguns. You wouldn't know it, though. What's the difference here? Well, I think we've hammered out a system which uses social support to preserve these 'family values' while respecting individuals. We approach things in a way which states that education and health care and other positive rights are needed to maintain a coheisive social structure. Our health care isn't perfect, but our infant mortality rates are lower, and the average age of our citizens at death is higher than yours. If your democrats were the same as ours, it'd probably work.
Originally posted by paganini:
Why are we arguing about this anyway? The voters clearly said they're against gay marriage beacuse it will destroy family unit. We already have enough of a divorce problem in this country. Democrats need to address the conservative voters in the midwest or else they'll never win another election in the presidential level. |
Message edited by author 2004-11-07 23:54:50.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2004 11:45:39 PM · #212 |
Oh, and as for the handgun and hunting thing, it's hard to understand why someone would want to hunt with a handgun ;). If you've ever tried to hit a pop (soda) can at 20 feet with a handgun, you'd quickly realise that it's not like it is on TV. Handguns kill people. A Ruger .3006 (personal gun of choice) was designed to kill deer, and that's what we do with 'em.
Message edited by author 2004-11-08 00:53:01.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2004 10:41:54 AM · #213 |
20 feet? So 6-7 yards, easy.
In Texas when you get a concealed handgun carrying permit you have to pass a series of tests on handgun. Scoring points based on a human sillhouette from 3, 5 and 15 yards range.
Tell me, how can my handgun kill you when I don't hold it, aim it and fire it at you? Does my handgun have its own mind? :-)
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
Oh, and as for the handgun and hunting thing, it's hard to understand why someone would want to hunt with a handgun ;). If you've ever tried to hit a pop (soda) can at 20 feet with a handgun, you'd quickly realise that it's not like it is on TV. Handguns kill people. A Ruger .3006 (personal gun of choice) was designed to kill deer, and that's what we do with 'em. |
|
|
|
|
11/08/2004 10:43:20 AM · #214 |
BTW, i just did a search on google for handgun hunter.. and this is one top link it came out:
//www.handgunhunt.com/
Those of you that don't believe it, just do a google search, see for yourselves how many links there are.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2004 10:45:27 AM · #215 |
I believe the conservatives have already complained day after day about Hollywood in general. They h ave their right of first amendment, and we have our rights to choose a president.
Yes, and you Canadians also have a 60% tax rate too. All that social welfare doesn't come cheap. I prefer my tax rates.
I'll bet in 5 years you won't have your guns at all -- you'll end up like Australia, a total gun ban.
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
Tony,
So how do you explain the acceptance of the sanctity of marriage being denigrated on the myriad marriage-related 'reality' shows out there? Is this portraying marriage in a positive light? Nobody seems to care about this, though. I don't buy the family values argument here at all. I still think it boils down to a general anti-gay sentiment.
You're oversimplifying the Democrat standpoint a little here I think. I'm Canadian, so don't participate in your system, but we Canadians have accepted gay marriage, and yet have roughly a 45% divorce rate vs the US 49% (read: we accept gay marriage AND value marriage more than you seem to). We also marry a bit older. We have guns but we don't shoot people. I come from a house with enough guns to outfit a platoon, including handguns. You wouldn't know it, though. What's the difference here? Well, I think we've hammered out a system which uses social support to preserve these 'family values' while respecting individuals. We approach things in a way which states that education and health care and other positive rights are needed to maintain a coheisive social structure. Our health care isn't perfect, but our infant mortality rates are lower, and the average age of our citizens at death is higher than yours. If your democrats were the same as ours, it'd probably work.
Originally posted by paganini:
Why are we arguing about this anyway? The voters clearly said they're against gay marriage beacuse it will destroy family unit. We already have enough of a divorce problem in this country. Democrats need to address the conservative voters in the midwest or else they'll never win another election in the presidential level. |
|
Message edited by author 2004-11-08 10:48:37.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2004 12:13:39 PM · #216 |
Originally posted by paganini:
On the issue of whether genetics can be passed from gay person to the next or from non-gay to gays -- i have never said I believe that gays are based on genes.
"but what I said was, IF it is genetic, than it's a genetic disorder, it's not the norm. And IF it is genetic, than yes, someone who have a child who is gay, is then carrying that gene." |
I still don't see any IF posted by you. so your second statement is not true. what you DID say about gay people is:
Originally posted by paganini:
At best, they're people with genetic diseases, at worst, they're people in need of psychological help.
Maybe you are the one who needs psychological help?
Just a thought.
BTW- I keep looking for the %60 tax rate you keep quoting for Canadians, but I can't find proof of a %60 tax anywhere. What I see for personal taxes is 26%-53% (that is the HIGHEST it goes)
Heres a link for tax rates in Canada
heres some info on USA federal tax percentages
heres some info on USA state tax percentages
Message edited by author 2004-11-08 12:37:14.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2004 12:24:18 PM · #217 |
More questions regarding the election:
"In a voting precinct in Ohio's Franklin County, records show that 638 people cast ballots. Yet, George W Bush got 4,258 votes to John Kerry's 260. In reality, Bush only received 365 votes. That means Bush got nearly 3,900 extra votes. And that's just in one small precinct. This in a state that Bush officially won by only 136,000 votes. Elections officials blamed electronic voting for the extra Bush votes."
From Democracynow.org.
I think we haven't heard the last of the problems concerning this election.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2004 02:06:41 PM · #218 |
If you're making anywhere around the median income, it's about 30-40% in Canada. However, there are lot of incentives to reduce this. I'm not sure how it works in the states, but our RRSP (registered retirement savings plan) contributions are tax deductable, as are mortgage payments on your house.
It comes down to philosophy. Generally Canadians see social support as something which is needed, and is a major reason why we have better overall health care, less crime, and less poverty. I see an argument that conservatives in the US want less government control, less taxes and yet also value the family unit and traditional core social values like family, religion etc. I see these as contradictory. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
Originally posted by ericlimon:
Originally posted by paganini:
On the issue of whether genetics can be passed from gay person to the next or from non-gay to gays -- i have never said I believe that gays are based on genes.
"but what I said was, IF it is genetic, than it's a genetic disorder, it's not the norm. And IF it is genetic, than yes, someone who have a child who is gay, is then carrying that gene." |
I still don't see any IF posted by you. so your second statement is not true. what you DID say about gay people is:
Originally posted by paganini:
At best, they're people with genetic diseases, at worst, they're people in need of psychological help.
Maybe you are the one who needs psychological help?
Just a thought.
BTW- I keep looking for the %60 tax rate you keep quoting for Canadians, but I can't find proof of a %60 tax anywhere. What I see for personal taxes is 26%-53% (that is the HIGHEST it goes)
Heres a link for tax rates in Canada
heres some info on USA federal tax percentages
heres some info on USA state tax percentages |
|
|
|
|
11/08/2004 02:58:16 PM · #219 |
I said "At best", meaning, even if the argument is true that gays are genetic, then it's a genetic disorder, otherwise, it's a pscyhological issue. Maybe you can't read?
Originally posted by ericlimon:
Originally posted by paganini:
On the issue of whether genetics can be passed from gay person to the next or from non-gay to gays -- i have never said I believe that gays are based on genes.
"but what I said was, IF it is genetic, than it's a genetic disorder, it's not the norm. And IF it is genetic, than yes, someone who have a child who is gay, is then carrying that gene." |
I still don't see any IF posted by you. so your second statement is not true. what you DID say about gay people is:
Originally posted by paganini:
At best, they're people with genetic diseases, at worst, they're people in need of psychological help.
Maybe you are the one who needs psychological help?
Just a thought.
BTW- I keep looking for the %60 tax rate you keep quoting for Canadians, but I can't find proof of a %60 tax anywhere. What I see for personal taxes is 26%-53% (that is the HIGHEST it goes)
Heres a link for tax rates in Canada
heres some info on USA federal tax percentages
heres some info on USA state tax percentages |
|
|
|
|
11/08/2004 03:06:09 PM · #220 |
50-60% of tax rate in canada is after you add up both federal + provincial income taxes + the value added tax (additional federal level sales tax).
In my tax bracket if i were to live in Quebec, i'd pay about 53% in the income taxes, not including VAT. I assume the links posted are in CANADIAN dollars.
Jimmy is right -- you can't have it both ways, and conservatives would like the people to decide what they want with their money, instead of a forced governmental level decision to make everyone pay the same taxes. It's a fact that universal healthcare barely works for countries like Canada whose population is a lot less than the US (it tends to work better in small countries with less population) where patients from Canada is coming to the US for treatment because in their country the wait is pretty damn long.
P.S. I live in Texas, which means, my state income level is 0%. I do pay a higher % for property taxes, but that you can choose by buying less expensive houses and you'll pay less. It's a much fairer system. I'd suspect if you were to live in NY City, you'd end up paying federal, state + city tax, which will probably make you pay about 50% in my tax bracket.
Taken to the extreme - i believe it was in Sweden that the tax rate is about 70-80% for the highest tax brackets. The fact is -- the rich often do not pay these taxes because their income isn't based on "income", they're based on investments. What the taxes are doing is really hurting the upper-middle class if it's taxed on income levels alone.
Message edited by author 2004-11-08 15:09:38.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2004 03:19:14 PM · #221 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Actually, the best argument that homosexuals are "the way they are" is that God made them that way, as He made everything ... who are you (or me) to then question His purpose in doing so? Since God is acknowledged to be unknowable, to profess the ability to divine God's thoughts and intentions strikes me as an assumption of prophethood -- a risky occupation in any era, traditionally leading to a painful demise in this temporal sphere, with only your faith in a perpetual existence "beyond" as a redeeming feature. |
Here is some of God's thoughts on homosexuality straight from the new testment:
1 Corinthians 6
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11
Now the common liberal attack on an anti-homosexual view is that we "hate" homosexuals, when actually it is homosexuality that christians have a problem with.
It may seem like a subtle difference but its not. One deals with a person and the other with a sinful act.
God's second greatest commandment demands that we as christians love our brothers, but this in no way means that we should condone or promote sinful behavior which is what legalizing gay marriage would do in the eyes of most christians. Whether you agree or not is pointless as long as the majority of Americans believe this way and can be persuaded to vote on election day.
This argument boils down to people not understanding the argument on both sides:
Christians thinking it is ok to Hate anyone which is wrong.
and
Progressives thinking that it is gay bashing or whatever to disagree with homosexuality as a practice.
Its not the people we "hate" its the practice.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2004 03:21:43 PM · #222 |
Originally posted by paganini:
The fact is -- the rich often do not pay these taxes because their income isn't based on "income", they're based on investments. What the taxes are doing is really hurting the upper-middle class if it's taxed on income levels alone. |
Which is the neocon plan in the US. Tax only people's labor. This will concentrate more wealth and power upward and help calcify the current class structure.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2004 03:22:56 PM · #223 |
But homosexuality seems to be singled out as bad, and yet 'drunkards' are accepted....if you take that both Cheney and Bush have had drunk driving convictions. How do you explain away that little tidbit?
Originally posted by jlhudson:
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. |
|
|
|
|
11/08/2004 03:29:32 PM · #224 |
They dont CONDONE the actions IE try to make drunk driving legal................
No one is innocent of sin that dosen't mean we should condone it.
Message edited by author 2004-11-08 15:30:20. |
|
|
|
11/08/2004 03:29:47 PM · #225 |
Originally posted by jlhudson:
Here is some of God's thoughts on homosexuality straight from the new testment: |
Do you have something from the Old Testament?
I believe there's some debate over whether the latter-day prophets were channeling God or just spin-doctoring and appropriating the most successful (to date) monotheistic faith for their own purposes.
I mean the Catholics have even ended up with their own country ... which isn't being bombed daily either.
Since it's quite common to find scriptural passages which directly contradict each other, I'm afraid that we'll each have to pick and choose those which support our view and agree to disagree on what it means; unless God decides to put in a personal appearance and clarify matters it's all opinion ...
Message edited by author 2004-11-08 15:33:38. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 11:31:59 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 11:31:59 PM EDT.
|
