betsy

Didn't they promise more before....and delivered what? So as far as their track records for "action"....you only see action prior to election time. But by not saying anything about it suggests what? That nobody wants to take that bold step to make it a policy...because they know there's never going to be any change in that section? That it's a foregone conclusion...and in a sense, acceptance of the truth...that their party is prone to corruptions? In other words it seems to say: "Corruptions and the Liberal Party come as a package. Here's what we are, the way it is, and ....take it or leave it." I guess they figured they do not have to change their spots, thinking people would vote Liberals anyway just to get rid of Harper. Why do they have to make any more compromises?

Right after the election, the disgraced Liberal Party had acknowledged that what really did them in was the issue of corruption, the culture of entitlement seen through various scandals that had erupted, the question of integrity. The division among them was also a concern, but it was nowhere as serious as the image the Liberal Party had presented to the people of Canada, after all it was corruption that lost them Quebec. They made a big promise of re-building, of a massive work ahead of them and had sworn that they will go through a re-newal....bringing back a new Liberal Party. Did I miss something when the candidates had all made their pitches last week-end? Did anyone bring about any policy about accountability? Of ending the impression about their party's "culture of entitlement?" Of unquestionable integrity? I think only Kennedy attempted to hint at that....and was met with stony silence from the audience. The ensuing orchestrated photo ops before the hundreds of media cameras...and the well-spinned responses to questions...all showing this "unity" among them. But that's it. That's all they talk about now in front of the cameras...Unity! That this is the "new" Liberal Party. What happened to integrity, and corruption, and culture of entitlement? Suddenly talks about them...poof! And now I see Dion. And hear about his "father-son" or "Uncle-nephew" relationship with Chretien. His association with the Martin government. And I thought about the $400 million dollars budget for the environment...that mysteriously disappeared into thin air. Somehow I still have the odd feeling that I am still looking at the old Liberals. Nothing had really changed at all.

Phooey-kablooey and double baloney! As far as I know, the priesthood does not forbid priests from leaving the grounds of the church. They are free to mingle with everyone. They may be expected to be celibate...but don't tell me lack of opportunity is not there...if one is desperate enough! If some priests could manage to have sexual contacts and affairs with adult women...I don't see why some priests could just sodomize a boy or molest a child, just because they lead a celibate life. They are perverts! Plain and simple. Their sexual taste are into that direction. They would still go for the boy or the child, even if there is the choice of an adult woman somewhere in the room! Naked. Willing and waiting! It doesn't matter. The answer still remains the same...and it had already been addressed on this thread! All you seek is to re-hash the same old same old. That comment above is an example. We already talked about this very same thing you've brought out (again). Right here on this very same thread! I have no wish to go on this boring merry-go-round dance with you. I've had it with unreasonable childish petulance. Bring out something new if you want to breathe new life to this discussion. Otherwise, stop bugging me. Better yet, I'd be a good example to some adults on how to deal with irritants. I'll ignore you....until you've got something sensible to say. So, bye.

I have not read Nietzsche at all, but his quote implies the "herds" were all mindless. Did he say to what he based this statement? What is "mindless?" How do you know what makes people cling to religion? Or to be more precise, a faith? Why is there a need for humans to "worship?" Long before established religions had existed? They worship the sun, the moon, trees, volcanoes, and what else....but it is still worship nevertheless, their own interpretation of a god. Of a Creator. As for evolution, how can we know how far we have "evolved"...if, we had evolved at all...without looking back into the past? I too, do not believe we came from apes! You say: Those men from the past were men of the future at that time. PS This makes for an interesting argument (with Jeferriah having knowledge of the theories you speak of). It should have its own thread devoted entirely to its discussion.

It's a tough choice: I was torn between Militant Muslims and Militant Atheist (militant liberal-thinkers). Both embraces ideologies opposite from one another...and yet both would result in very repressive societies. Liberal-Thinkers dabble in Communism and Socialist idea, however Militant Libera-Thinkers would want to extend that farther. We've had the Christian values entrenched all along in most democratic societies....and for all its faults, those democratic societies are still thriving. It is for peace. For compassion. Love. So you could say, it had gone through the test of time. One of the main reasons why we see it faltering now...is largely due to Militant Liberal-Thinkers. It must be terrible for someone who had known only democratic freedom to suddenly lose it all. It is much worse compared to those who never have had a taste of it. However, I ended up choosing Militant Muslims. Mainly because of their belief that those who do not believe in theirs must not live. So there can be no contentment for this bunch while there are non-believers populating our planet.

There's more. CAS.

Which part of the future?

Btw, I'm not sure about this, but wasn't it mentioned somewhere that it's not advisable having a lot of multiple boxes in one post? Didn't Greg advice us to split them up if they're long?

Gnam, In your previous posts, you were not debating about that particular argument that Kimmy and I got stuck in for so long - vicious comments depicting graphic violence towards a child, - but your main thrust or focus was more into ethics and my position about the whole thing. But on your post #161, you suddenly shifted gear and had joined Kimmy in her argument, and tried to justify those comments by stating the following. And you suggested the little girl needed therapy? The little girl is doing fine....if she had been doing what she's been doing for sometime, I'm willing to bet she'd met people such as those who had commented...and most likely experienced some negative and put-down reactions. At least she seemed to have a good grip on handling rejections. For her age and size, she seemed to have her head firmly levelled between those shoulders....which sharply contrasts the way some adults are dealing with this trivial matter of getting approached by her. So she's spreading the word, but so what? What she's doing right now, making cold contacts and giving pitches, can become valuable tools in the field of sales later on. My over-all response about this whole topic, a subject matter that criticizes the "fanatical" aspect of the Christian religion was to show the other side's reflection in the mirror. The parallel. The hypocrisy. The prejudice. Liberal-thinking is as much a religion for it seeks to indoctrinized. And it harbors the same kind of zealotry, blindness, extremism and fanaticism...just like any other religion. What more perfect picture of wilfull blindness and zealotry than that expressed by some comments, from that link and on this thread. And to think that practically the same people who embrace this liberal-thinking are the same ones who champion tolerance. I wouldn't say Christians are being persecuted. Not yet, anyway. But it makes one take a long hard look when a little girl named Rachel is being joked about in a forum....as an object in graphic violent fantasies. And as I pointed out, she's not just a hypothetical figure. She's got a face and a name. In a way it was childish the way Kimmy and I carried on with that one particular aspect. I guess my statement about the "ignore button in your systems" was misunderstood. I meant your own capabilities to handle irritants in your everyday lives. Bottom line in the ensuing arguments, is our freedom of choice. No one is forcing anything on anyone.

Funny how suddenly you can casually dismiss this as mere "histrionics". A group of people gleefully in quite a festive mood fantasizing in graphic violent details what they'd like to do to a littel girl. I wonder how many parties started out so innocently, until they got into a banter about what they'd like to do to blacks...and what blacks deserved to get...that the festive mood had become a "coon-hunting" party? Rachel's got a face, Kimmy. She's got a name. Mind you, I am not really familiar with your other opinions on other matters so I don't know where you stand on a lot of other things. But I wonder if you'd still dismiss it as "histrionics" if we change the name of Rachel into "gay." Like if they say: "I'd love to slap a gay senseless when he comes cruisin' around." or... "If a gay apporaches and propositions me, I'd make him choke on his condoms." or... "God, please help that gay smash his face on a rock." If you really stop and think about it...what I'm on about has nothing to do about religion at all. It is about the intolerance coming from a group that's supposed to be the champion of tolerance. I'm holding up the mirror to your face. I'm showing you how hypocritical some people are. I don't want to see anybody hurt or anybody threatened in the same way....whether they're gay or midgets or women or evengelists etc.., You could've just said nothing...after all, I'm reacting to THOSE comments. As far as I know, you didn't say anything as such in this thread. So why you came all steamed up and puffing and had gone all HYPERSENSITIVE on ME instead....beats me. Why, were you harboring the same dark fantacies thus you are acting so defensive? I just love the way you sound like a voice of authority on psychopaths. How do you know? One thing I know though: it ain't normal to go ballistic over something so trivial. Pardon me, Kimmy...but it is YOU who's getting all worked up over MY opinion. All I did was point out those comments and voiced my outrage. You've gone all out with both barrels blazing DEFENDING them! Just because people don't make any comments does not mean they defend those comments as well. I am not sure how they truly feel...but at least they had the good sense to stay out of a loosing argument! Have you noticed how many among the posters here touched that very particular argument? It was only you who's actually defending them...until Gnam here decided to become your little side-kick and joined you in that hole...that's of course, getting deeper and deeper... Bwahaha-ha-ha-ha! If Gnam and you, whom I assume are both adults...cannot find it in yourselves to use the "ignore" button in your systems...and let yourself get all worked up by little girls giving you 30-second spiels, well I'd hate to see how you guys managed those other solicitors, who mostly not only give you a pitch, but also try to get private information from you! I noticed though, you both got one thing in common: you two seem to have a lot of anger in you. I can arrange for all of us to get together and have a bible study...at your convenience. So how about it, girls? You might find that faith sometimes has a very calming effect.

Hey, what can I say? Just as I thought that it is not compelling argument you truly seek , as you claimed, to see "reason" or "truth." Your mind is fully made up. So what's the point of us butting heads. Just in this incident of Rachel being thrown all these vicious comments depicting graphic violence...seems just okay with you simply because she gave out pamphlets about religion...only shows how clouded your perspective is. I guess it was her pamphlet and her faith that made her fair game. There's only one clear message I'm getting from this thread: for the talks of tolerance and concern about violence towards anything (from women to children to animals, to homosexuals...etc)...it must extend to only those that a certain group of self-righteous people approve of. If something violent should happen to Rachel or to anyone who gave out pamphlet and words of faith, it must be because, she or they had asked for it. Make it two clear messages: fanaticism and warped reasonings? Non-religious folks are just as bad! As if it's not confusing enough with all the old established religions around! Perhaps the whole world needs a therapy with all these contradictions and confusions about the enlightened "doctrines" that got into the mix? I mean if hearing the word "Jesus" could elicit this strong emotion in you...which you said: "but every time I here some idiot rambling on 'ad tedium' about that Jesus guy I sorta feel like curb stomping the next long-hair, bearded hippie i see cruising down the boulevard in his sandals, white robes, and blue sash.." I guess it's you who do need therapy! Badly. Enlightened. What a cute word! So very like now-ish! Was it inspired by the old-ish, "Hallelujah! I see the LIGHT!" Gnam, you'll never bend. And neither would I. You've got free wills....and you live in a democratic society. So, whatever!

Well we can all translate the bible anyway we want...thus we've got this major upheaval in our church. Everyone's trying to do their own translation. Yes God made us in His image, and gave us free will. But He also said that He is the WAY....and that HIS WAY is narrow. So He threw us the challenge. Following in His footsteps is no walk in the park. Therefore there is no way man should bend God's laws just to suit man's own selfish intent of gratification...otherwise God would have indicated that it's just so easy to follow His way. That He knows and He warns of this narrow road leading to His kingdom, along with all the pitfalls along the way...clearly tells that in His view, and His purpose and intent, only those who navigate it well, will succeed. How well enough? It is for God to say and to judge what is considered a "success" in His view and what is not. He gave you His message. He gave you the free will to choose. It is a human want to survive...and yes, I believe that it is also a want to go live in peace. But sometimes as shown throughout history, survival and peace can only be achieved with a fight.

Yes in time, the child develops, agreeing and disagreeing. Many a time, as young adults they tend to go the opposite way of what their parents believed, or thinking that they would do theirs differently from their parents. I was such as a teen and a young adult. But later on, as we mature...or get older....of course, depending on the kinds of parents that we've had....some of us would end up gravitating back to those old beliefs that our parents had taught us and agree with them. Thus we begin the cycle again with our own children. But yes, there is the danger that the child as an adult, would end up shunning our own religion...and fully embracing another...or none at all. As a parent and a Christian, I guess what more can I do? I'd still love him though...and keep on "nagging." But the faith of any religion should not change. Why should the teachings of your God be made flexible by mere humans...just to suit somebody's want....or to go with the "flow?" I would say, the laws of the church...those man-made laws, I must stress, can be flexible. But not the teachings or the words of God. PS. Blackdog, thanks! I did it!!!

It's easy. Instead of hitting the "reply" button on the post you wish to respond to, hit "add reply" at the bottom of the page and then copy and paste the text you are responding to between the QUOTE tags. You can repond to multiple posts within one post of your own. Thanks. I'll try that.

Well I don't know if you're being truthful here...so okay I'll assume you are. But you got me curious. Of all things, why his testicles? Yes I know normal people don't get all that worked up on message boards....that's what I've been telling you! I reacted to the link you provided...and you got all so steamed up...and all worked up! You're steamed because your link got a different reaction from what you want to have. Instead, I found those comments and reacted to them instead. And you're sticking your neck out defending vicious graphic violence aimed at a kid...even though you could see how foolish you sound! Anyway, whatever...<shaking my head>

Some politicians do get assassinated, don't they? Celebrities like John Lennon do get stabbed. Some go to the extent of hiring bodyguards. Anyway....how do you know all of those who commented were joking? Did you see their faces?

Well I don't know. To me, saying, " make her choke on it," gives a vivid picture of someone forcefully ramming those literature down her throat. I wince when PETA describes how ducks' throats are rammed when they make pate'. Harris was supposed to have said "rip the arms off racists." Now...you'd understand how someone would be so mad about racists when you think of those supremacists burning and lynching blacks. If Harris was not who he turned out to be (a killer)....I too, would not think much of what he said. But we're talking of a little girl who only gave that 30-second spiel.....I don't think it warrants any reactions so vicious! They may just be "off-color" to you....but to me, they're not just that. Besides, they're not talking about an unknown hypothetical girl...this girl is clearly identified. She is not anonymous.

So you judge me by those thread...thus you bestow your own MORAL JUDGEMENT upon me based on those opinion. Which you are twisting out of context. Now I get the picture! No wonder you feel that sort of paranoia when you are faced-to-faced with a Muslim woman in traditional garb. Because you, yourself, automatically judge others...therefore you assume they judge you! You don't know me. I think I would know when my child is just being introduced to Allah or the space aliens hiding in some couple's closet...I think I'll know enough when my child's encounter with a Muslim is quite harmless. I'll totally flip though if my son comes home wearing a red dress and a long wig, with make-up and all...and tells me the couple even gave him a manicure! So a Muslim talk to my child about Allah...big deal! It'll be just one of many! I'm sure my child will be coming home from school with a lot of other information that he'd learned from others that he'd ask me about. Sex, homosexuals, alternative lifestyle, etc.., If you've got a good relationship with your child...and if you encourage and welcome open communication between him and you...you've got nothing to worry about. At least they make nice conversations at the dinner table after you've exhausted all the pleasantries of "how's your day." You can correct, edit, revise, critique, etc.., all the information your child brings home to you. That's how they learn! But I surely don't want my child going into ANY STRANGER'S home....religious or non-religious homes, just because it isn't safe anymore. Who knows if it'll turn out to be the house of a Gacy wannabe.

You're speaking with your emotion, and apparently blinded by your prejudice. I don't know what cause such strong reaction from you against the Christians, or maybe other religions...it's hard to believe it could be just that one episode with your dad. McDonald's and the vacuum Village pay taxes I suppose simply for the reason that they are registered as businesses. They are out to make a profit. Maybe they should apply to become religion...and just rely on DONATIONS for every burger and vacuum cleaner they hand out.

deleted. out of topic.

Not sure who brought the vacumn leaner salesman thing into it (this thread is a pain to read: betsy can you try and respond in one post instead of making a new post everytime?) but I'll say this much; they are both annoying in their own way. But what makes religious types worse is the implicit moral judgement. No vacumn cleaner salesman would tell you your dirty carpets make you a bad person, but that's precisely what every yahoo peddling their particular One, True path does just by turning up. I'd like to stress the particular statements I was responding to... but I don't know how to make multiple boxes in one post. But who doesn't make any implicit moral judgement? Religious or non-religious types? And so what if they make implicit moral judgement...religious and non-religious types? Why would we let it bother us to the point that we lose rationality? Especially when we don't believe what they preach anyway! Life is full of annoyances and irritants that we'd rather live without...it's just part of life! I'd say learn to deal with it...we don't have to accept them. No one is forcing us to accept them! We've got the choice!

luring children with candy is wrong for any purpose. You do this today and you would probably end up in court. No, I wouldn't say luring children with candies or toys is wrong for any purpose. C'mon, the biggest marketing grab are kids! They bring mom and dad in tow! Luring them to come to your house though, is dumb. Especially nowadays. If I were those couple, I would set up a huge tent...with a big sign: FREE CANDIES/TOYS IN EXCHANGE FOR A FEW MINUTES KNOWING JESUS! or, LISTEN TO THE GOSPEL AND GET 3 MARS BARS FREE! ...That way, you're just like any McDonald's or Burger King luring kids with Disney tie-up promo....and getting them into the fastfood lifestyle! That's the way to live, man! Fastfood meals! Hey, if they can do it, why can't we?

I'm not going to have my kid experience getting sodomized just to give him a chance to decide whether he likes it or not! How to cross the street is just a tiny fraction of learning (unless you speak symbolically). VALUES! Those are the gems of learning we get from our parents! My child will learn the values of this family. And should he wish not to indulge with our values...he can always do so...when he reach adulthood and make a home for himself! And I will always love him! Sure I will teach him my religion. That's where most of our values are rooted from. My parents never forced me to believe...they've welcomed my questions. And in my teen years, they've put up with my rebellion! So of course, I'll be applying the same method to my kid! That's where children learn: from their parents! Brainwash or not...I say I am the parent, and nobody's going to tell me how I should raise my kid. And most parents think this way. Hence there's only one way for the busy-body crusaders to breach that wall. By force! Getting kids "doctrinized" in the classrooms (or much better yet, getting them while they are really young in daycares)...and through legislations! So you non-religious folks are no different from us...or from the preacher you quoted about getting children while they're young! The non-religious group and the busy-body crusaders will do the same if they have the chance! And oh, how they'd love to get that chance! Don't they just love to get their hands on our children. And they're working on it...it won't be long, don't worry...I'm willing to bet. No lures of candies with this group. No sireeee! Once they get their toes in the doors of your homes...they're in! Our only difference is our beliefs....the kinds of values that we want to teach the children!

Wait, little Rachel is female, isn't she? Why haven't those angry feminists already swooped down?? I'm wondering too! And Rachel isn't only female...she's a child to boot! Maybe they can't decide what to do. After all...they're mostly anti-religion too!

I really don't agree. I think dad was right to tell them to stop what they were doing. If it were your kids, and if instead of Christians, it were (say) Muslims or Scientologists luring them to their back yard to teach your kids about their faith, I doubt you'd be as forgiving. -k {do you have a moment to speak of enlightenment? here, have a flower. } If I remember your story right...it was your friend who invited you and took you there, right? Did your dad even talk to your friend at all? If it was my kid...I'd just tell my kid not to go there again. And explain why! And I'd call her friend's parents...just in case they have no idea what's going on. And just so they know where I stand on the issue. Diplomatic talk. I might talk to the preacher couple too, but in a diplomatic way. I mean, even if they're Muslims or Scientologists....there's really no harm done, except wasting my daughter's time, right? Then I'd talk to her friend...and depending on what I think of her, I might either tell my kid not to hang around with her anymore (that's it! kaput the friendship!)....or not to go anywhere with her without my permission. And I'll warn my daughter, if I learned she went to a stranger's house behind my back...she'll get a spanking! It's just not the thing that my daughter is getting doctrinized...it's just the thought of my daughter going into strangers' houses that's enough to make my blood pressure go up!