For Those Who Do Believe In God...

[Coloradomtnman]

You mean the way you proselytize here against religion?

To each his own. Let them pray as they may.

A ritual sacrifice I would be against, but anyone is allowed to pray.

And I do not consider praying to be proselytizing. Why do you?

Sorry, Sheila, but you're acting the apologist in this case. She prayed and preached outloud. She could've prayed in private. She could've respected my grandmother's dying wishes.

So if a Satanist started praying outloud to Satan at your grandmother's funeral, you'd be okay with that. Really? Are you just saying that or are you being sincere?

 

[Againsheila]

You mean the way you proselytize here against religion?

To each his own. Let them pray as they may.

A ritual sacrifice I would be against, but anyone is allowed to pray.

And I do not consider praying to be proselytizing. Why do you?

Sorry, Sheila, but you're acting the apologist in this case. She prayed and preached outloud. She could've prayed in private. She could've respected my grandmother's dying wishes.

So if a Satanist started praying outloud to Satan at your grandmother's funeral, you'd be okay with that. Really? Are you just saying that or are you being sincere?

However someone deals with their grief is their business. If someone is stupid enough to pray to Satan at a funeral I attend, I will not stop them, nor will I denigrate them for doing so. It's a funeral for goodness sake. Everyone is suppose to grieve in their own way.

Of course, I don't know any Satanists so the chances of that happening is extremely rare, if it ever happens, I'll let you know how I really react. I do know some Wiccans, but they are not Satanists.

 

[Newby]

You are actively challenging anyone with belief to show the logic in their belief. You are insinuating clearly that there is no logic or rational thinking in having faith, thereby insinuating that those who do have faith are apparently not thinking rationally or logically, i.e. they are STUPID. You can say that you're not insulting all you want, but that is clearly your intension.

And if a christian came up to you and started preaching to you and asking you about your faith, you could scream that they are trying to force their views on you, so why is it okay for you to bring up the topic as 'a way for people to question their beliefs'? Why do you care? Why are you trying to force your point of view on others?

What's wrong with challenging someone's beliefs. I posted it as a thread, if they don't want their beliefs challenged, then they don't have to answer the questions in the OP. I didn't force anyone to respond to these questions.

If you read every post of this thread, especially mine, you would have read that I wrote that although faith is irrational and illogical, it isn't inferior. I actually wrote that in an earlier post. Go back and read it.

If a Christian came up to me and started preaching to me, it would be because they are trying to convert me. If they wanted to discuss the nature of faith, that would be different. I'm not trying to make anyone give up their religions beliefs. I'm not attempting to convert anyone.

But if you think faith is logical, then show me. All you've done on this thread is criticize my posts. Why don't you write something that actually contributes to the discussion, quit criticizing, or if you don't agree with the thread then get off or go start your own.

Logic is subjective. I think faith is perfectly logical given that man cannot even begin to comprehend or explain the world around him or the universe. You have faith in what you call 'logic', but you cannot even begin to say that you fully understand the universe or how it works. I'd rather put my faith in the fact that I do not know everything, you are putting all of your faith in that you think you know and understand everything. I'd bet on my point of view being more accurate any day.

 

[Newby]

You mean the way you proselytize here against religion?

To each his own. Let them pray as they may.

A ritual sacrifice I would be against, but anyone is allowed to pray.

And I do not consider praying to be proselytizing. Why do you?

Sorry, Sheila, but you're acting the apologist in this case. She prayed and preached outloud. She could've prayed in private. She could've respected my grandmother's dying wishes.

So if a Satanist started praying outloud to Satan at your grandmother's funeral, you'd be okay with that. Really? Are you just saying that or are you being sincere?

Last I looked, a funeral home isn't a government owned entity (not yet anyway), therefore anyone is FREE to grieve in whatever way meets their individual needs. The funeral wasn't for your grandmother, she's gone, it was for the people who cared about her. And if the aunt was her daughter, she certainly has every right to grieve however suits her. Once again, you're trying to control what someone else does or doesn't do, why is it okay for you to set and enforce the rules?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

However someone deals with their grief is their business. If someone is stupid enough to pray to Satan at a funeral I attend, I will not stop them, nor will I denigrate them for doing so. It's a funeral for goodness sake. Everyone is suppose to grieve in their own way.

Of course, I don't know any Satanists so the chances of that happening is extremely rare, if it ever happens, I'll let you know how I really react. I do know some Wiccans, but they are not Satanists.

So you won't denigrate them? What about the word I bolded in your quote?

I didn't say anything to my aunt, and I didn't call her stupid. I wrote on this message board in a post that she doesn't even know about that she behaved disrespectfully and self-righteously. Hardly the same as calling her stupid.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Last I looked, a funeral home isn't a government owned entity (not yet anyway), therefore anyone is FREE to grieve in whatever way meets their individual needs. The funeral wasn't for your grandmother, she's gone, it was for the people who cared about her. And if the aunt was her daughter, she certainly has every right to grieve however suits her. Once again, you're trying to control what someone else does or doesn't do, why is it okay for you to set and enforce the rules?

I didn't attempt to control my aunt. She was my grandmother's daughter-in-law, the funeral was a celebration of my grandmother's memory, and my grandmother didn't want it to be religious. My aunt could pray in silence or in private. She can preach at church. Read my posts. All I said was that she displayed typical monotheistic self-righteousness and disrespect for other's beliefs and/or wishes.

Newby, you're way out of your league. You can't contribute, only criticize. Shut up and get off this thread.

 

[LOki]

Logic is subjective. I think faith is perfectly logical given that man cannot even begin to comprehend or explain the world around him or the universe. You have faith in what you call 'logic', but you cannot even begin to say that you fully understand the universe or how it works. I'd rather put my faith in the fact that I do not know everything, you are putting all of your faith in that you think you know and understand everything. I'd bet on my point of view being more accurate any day.

100% senseless.

 

[Newby]

Last I looked, a funeral home isn't a government owned entity (not yet anyway), therefore anyone is FREE to grieve in whatever way meets their individual needs. The funeral wasn't for your grandmother, she's gone, it was for the people who cared about her. And if the aunt was her daughter, she certainly has every right to grieve however suits her. Once again, you're trying to control what someone else does or doesn't do, why is it okay for you to set and enforce the rules?

I didn't attempt to control my aunt. She was my grandmother's daughter-in-law, the funeral was a celebration of my grandmother's memory, and my grandmother didn't want it to be religious. My aunt could pray in silence or in private. She can preach at church. Read my posts. All I said was that she displayed typical monotheistic self-righteousness and disrespect for other's beliefs and/or wishes.

Newby, you're way out of your league. You can't contribute, only criticize. Shut up and get off this thread.

Now you even think you can control me. Priceless. She can preach where ever she wants too and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. It's your OPINION that she displayed monotheistic self righteousness, just as it is my opinion that you clearly display agnostic self righteousness. You libs are all about controling others while you try to pretend that you're not.

 

[Newby]

Logic is subjective. I think faith is perfectly logical given that man cannot even begin to comprehend or explain the world around him or the universe. You have faith in what you call 'logic', but you cannot even begin to say that you fully understand the universe or how it works. I'd rather put my faith in the fact that I do not know everything, you are putting all of your faith in that you think you know and understand everything. I'd bet on my point of view being more accurate any day.

100% senseless.

Really? Why don't you explain your opinion on my comments and how you came to that opinion. If you can, that is.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Now you even think you can control me. Priceless. She can preach where ever she wants too and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. It's your OPINION that she displayed monotheistic self righteousness, just as it is my opinion that you clearly display agnostic self righteousness. You libs are all about controling others while you try to pretend that you're not.

Okay....

Whatever you want to believe, Newby. Go right ahead and believe it. There's no point in communicating with you. Where did I try to control someone? How did I attempt to control you? By forcing you to post on this thread? By forcing you to leave?

All I wrote was that my aunt was disrespectful of my grandmother's wishes to have a non-religious celebration of her memory. Can you deny that? Cause if you can, then you prove the point that I made about monotheism.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.

You have to be kidding me?! You don't know about the atrocities, the massacres, the small pox in the blankets, the TRAIL OF TEARS! for God's sake! Don't you know what life can be like on some of these reservations even today?

Are you really that nationalistic and ethnocentric Sheila?

We all go through hard times and those responsible for those things were going against Christ's teachings. Do you think I am less blessed because I have special needs children? Do you somehow think God has forsaken me because he didn't give me "normal" children? Do you think that my breast cancer was because God was punishing me? Or my husband's cancer? Or my mom's?

Do you not remember the plagues that ravaged Europe? Go back further to when the Muslims practically conquered Europe, killing the men, raping and killing the women.

I do not for one minute believe American Indians are less blessed than Europeans....we all go through trials for whatever reason and you can bet those responsible for things like that have paid in full by now.

As for life today....I know of a specific Indian tribe that owns an Island in the sound...they decided to make some money by selling some of that land to white people as vacation property. They bought the property, built cabins, and then the Indians decide that while they owned the property, they didn't have any rights to the beach, virtually cutting the whites off from their property. The Indians now live very nicely in those cabins built by the whites. Those same indians are allowed to net fish where whites are not. They have stolen my aunts boat, across the sound and used it for themselves, no one can stop them once they get it to their island. They have farmed my aunts oyster farm and not left the shells and now there are no oysters. NONE where there was once a massive number of oysters...I thought the Indians were suppose to respect mother nature.

No I don't believe all Indians are like that, but there you go, bad things were done on both sides and are still being done, to claim that one side is blessed more than the other is just plain stupid.

All true, more likely than not - but not exactly the point of the thesis of my post that started this side track.

Whether disease, disasters and plagues are dished out by God or not is truly the subject of another thread.

My thesis revolved around the historical conquests of nations and peoples at the hands of other nations and peoples and whether or not I can trust a god who would allow that to happen - right beside the subjugation of peoples by their more powerful neighbors - much if it happening with the overt 'blessing' of Gods Church and earthly representatives.

It was the Pope who divided Latin America between the Spanish and the Portuguese - overtly because God told him to, but I think it was the kick-backs of plunder sacked by both nations. How convenient it was to be on a 'mission from God' when the conquistadors honed their bloody job skills in the 'new' world.

How should we measure the affect of God on Earth if not by the success or failure of those who pray to Him?

The only way for me to keep from going crazy is to conclude that the god described in the Christian Bible is as much a product of real life stories combined with human imagination as the gods described in the Koran and the mythology of ancient Greece and Rome.

If the only way for you to keep from going crazy is to conclude that God must be real and you have bona fide (in your mind) conversations with Him, then I'm glad that works for you.

Spirituality is a dynamic decision we all must make individually and for ourselves in the privacy of our own minds...

Why must I be wrong for you to be right? I don't feel that way about you.

-Joe

 

[Newby]

Now you even think you can control me. Priceless. She can preach where ever she wants too and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. It's your OPINION that she displayed monotheistic self righteousness, just as it is my opinion that you clearly display agnostic self righteousness. You libs are all about controling others while you try to pretend that you're not.

Okay....

Whatever you want to believe, Newby. Go right ahead and believe it. There's no point in communicating with you. Where did I try to control someone? How did I attempt to control you? By forcing you to post on this thread? By forcing you to leave?

All I wrote was that my aunt was disrespectful of my grandmother's wishes to have a non-religious celebration of her memory. Can you deny that? Cause if you can, then you prove the point that I made about monotheism.

If you could have, you would have obviously stopped her from whatever awful thing it is you think she did, purely based on your own opinion or beliefs. You would have curtailed her activity based on your desires or opinion of what is right or wrong. No different than an anti-abortion activist wanting to curtail a woman from killing her baby because of their opinion of what is right and wrong. How can you not see that?

And you said, 'Shut up and get off this thread.', which is where you think you can control my actions apparently. You seem to have no problem telling other people what to do, but you critisize that same trait in others that you don't agree with.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

If you could have, you would have obviously stopped her from whatever awful thing it is you think she did, purely based on your own opinion or beliefs. You would have curtailed her activity based on your desires or opinion of what is right or wrong. No different than an anti-abortion activist wanting to curtail a woman from killing her baby because of their opinion of what is right and wrong. How can you not see that?

And you said, 'Shut up and get off this thread.', which is where you think you can control my actions apparently. You seem to have no problem telling other people what to do, but you critisize that same trait in others that you don't agree with.

Newby, I'm an ex-Marine. I could've stopped her from praying outloud and preaching to us. We were in my grandmother's home. But, I'm also a polite person and try to treat my family kindly, so I didn't. So why would I have curtailed her activity when I didn't? I don't mind religious people's beliefs until their beliefs are used to make me behave in the way they wish me to. I wouldn't go to a church and tell people that they're wrong or try to pass laws that made it so people couldn't worship. And I wouldn't tell people that their marriages don't count just cause I don't agree with it.

All I said, once again, was that my aunt was being disrespectful. My grandmother requested a non-religious celebration of her memory. My aunt prayed and preached. That disrespected her last wishes. That's all I'm saying. That's it. There was nothing mentioned about control.

I wasn't attempting to control your actions. I was suggesting that you practice your ignorance somewhere more appropriate.

And, once again, all you have done on this thread is criticize my posts. You haven't contributed beyond that. Thanks for trying. Bye Bye.

 

[Eightball]

You have to be kidding me?! You don't know about the atrocities, the massacres, the small pox in the blankets, the TRAIL OF TEARS! for God's sake! Don't you know what life can be like on some of these reservations even today?

Are you really that nationalistic and ethnocentric Sheila?

We all go through hard times and those responsible for those things were going against Christ's teachings. Do you think I am less blessed because I have special needs children? Do you somehow think God has forsaken me because he didn't give me "normal" children? Do you think that my breast cancer was because God was punishing me? Or my husband's cancer? Or my mom's?

Do you not remember the plagues that ravaged Europe? Go back further to when the Muslims practically conquered Europe, killing the men, raping and killing the women.

I do not for one minute believe American Indians are less blessed than Europeans....we all go through trials for whatever reason and you can bet those responsible for things like that have paid in full by now.

As for life today....I know of a specific Indian tribe that owns an Island in the sound...they decided to make some money by selling some of that land to white people as vacation property. They bought the property, built cabins, and then the Indians decide that while they owned the property, they didn't have any rights to the beach, virtually cutting the whites off from their property. The Indians now live very nicely in those cabins built by the whites. Those same indians are allowed to net fish where whites are not. They have stolen my aunts boat, across the sound and used it for themselves, no one can stop them once they get it to their island. They have farmed my aunts oyster farm and not left the shells and now there are no oysters. NONE where there was once a massive number of oysters...I thought the Indians were suppose to respect mother nature.

No I don't believe all Indians are like that, but there you go, bad things were done on both sides and are still being done, to claim that one side is blessed more than the other is just plain stupid.

All true, more likely than not - but not exactly the point of the thesis of my post that started this side track.

Whether disease, disasters and plagues are dished out by God or not is truly the subject of another thread.

My thesis revolved around the historical conquests of nations and peoples at the hands of other nations and peoples and whether or not I can trust a god who would allow that to happen - right beside the subjugation of peoples by their more powerful neighbors - much if it happening with the overt 'blessing' of Gods Church and earthly representatives.

It was the Pope who divided Latin America between the Spanish and the Portuguese - overtly because God told him to, but I think it was the kick-backs of plunder sacked by both nations. How convenient it was to be on a 'mission from God' when the conquistadors honed their bloody job skills in the 'new' world.

How should we measure the affect of God on Earth if not by the success or failure of those who pray to Him?

The only way for me to keep from going crazy is to conclude that the god described in the Christian Bible is as much a product of real life stories combined with human imagination as the gods described in the Koran and the mythology of ancient Greece and Rome.

If the only way for you to keep from going crazy is to conclude that God must be real and you have bona fide (in your mind) conversations with Him, then I'm glad that works for you.

Spirituality is a dynamic decision we all must make individually and for ourselves in the privacy of our own minds...

Why must I be wrong for you to be right? I don't feel that way about you.

-Joe

Joe: There are so many things that have gone on in past history, that were allegedly done in the name of "Christianity"......i.e. Crusades, Inquisition, .........and even your mention of the Pope dividing up the continents and peoples through his royal edict.

I say alleged, because the final judgement of Christianity lies with it's constitution, namely the bible. Christ was the totality of God Almighty, and every bit of Jesus' recorded N.T. life/actions/spoken words were God's, as Jesus said that He and the Father were One.

Many references in the N.T. soldify this fact that Christ was God-incarnate, and God's way of expressing/showing mankind who He was, is, and wil always be.

I know I'll get a lot of flack for this, but the edicts of past popes, was not what I would call biblical in many ways. The dividing of continents and people, the warring against non-Catholic nations in the name of Christ, can be found nowhere in the bible.

Now, one can look at the O.T. and see that the wandering Isaelites were promised an already occupied land called Canaan. That indeed was recorded by Moses in more than one of his authored books. Never the less, it was God who said, this land is yours, and I will allow you to take it. It seems rather different from the projection of God's nature that Jesus brings in the N.T., yet not once does Jesus repudiate the OT authors as not being inspired by God.

Even though Jesus' 33 recorded years of life with the last 3 comprising His ministry to the Jews and some gentiles too, didn' comprise taking Jerusalem by storm with His followers, but instead was of a non physical-sword approach. That sword was God's Word, from the mouth of Christ, both His Words, and those that He quoted that were from O.T. scripture and often quoted words of God back then.

Jesus, even told Pilate, that He was indeed a King, but His kingdom was not of this world. That perplexed Pilate, but did intrigue him enough that he knew he wasnt' dealing with a mere man. Even Pilates wife had warned her husband that she had, had dreadful dreams about dealing with this Man, Jesus.

Paul, in His epistles succinctly said that the Christian's or God's true followers were soldiers, but not in the vain of taking or proselytizing the human race by physical force, but by God's sword that was a metaphorical sword, that cut deep into a man's conscience even if possible to the marrow of his bones.

That sword was again God's Word, or gospel, or the redemption story of Christ. That sword told men that they were sinners from birth, and that God had a perfect redemptive plan to save them from His judgement. I.E. Christ's attoning life in their stead. Christ was called the God-Man, as He was fully human in everyway, yet was fully God in everyway. This indeed is a mystery to our finite human minds, yet God's plan required a human sacrifice that was not ritualistic, of the real thing through the shed blood of bulls, goats, and sheep, but a human's sacrifice of His life.

This sacrifice had to be sufficient in every way. Just as the Israelites of old had to sacrifice an unblemished animal for their sins, as a foreshadow of the real and complete sacrifice, Christ was that foreshadow.

Christ's life was a sinless human life, because He was God incarnate.

With God literally giving His life for us, He also clearly expressed to us who He was in nature. His nature: Loving, self-giving to the ultimate, forgiving, and filled with grace(unmerited favor towards us).
*******

 

[Newby]

I don't think your aunt was trying to control what you believe or don't believe either, and I didn't say that you did control her behavior, I said that if you had your desires, you would have silenced her.

I'm calling a spade a spade, Mr. Mountain Man. You are no different than the people that you are critisizing or ranting about in your posts. No different at all, just the flip side of the coin.

An ex-Marine that visits gay bars and is a lib... very interesting combination...

 

[Coloradomtnman]

With God literally giving His life for us, He also clearly expressed to us who He was in nature. His nature: Loving, self-giving to the ultimate, forgiving, and filled with grace(unmerited favor towards us).

Doesn't that strike you funny, Eightball? God didn't really die, now, did he? Nor did Jesus. Or both, or whatever. Jesus knew he would be resurrected, because he was God. God is omniscient. God can't die, just his body can. But God didn't have to fear because he knew he was going to Heaven.

And how would you measure the success of the Christian faith on Earth? By the actions of its adherents or the intentions of the Bible?

 

[Shogun]

With God literally giving His life for us, He also clearly expressed to us who He was in nature. His nature: Loving, self-giving to the ultimate, forgiving, and filled with grace(unmerited favor towards us).

Doesn't that strike you funny, Eightball? God didn't really die, now, did he? Nor did Jesus. Or both, or whatever. Jesus knew he would be resurrected, because he was God. God is omniscient. God can't die, just his body can. But God didn't have to fear because he knew he was going to Heaven.

And how would you measure the success of the Christian faith on Earth? By the actions of its adherents or the intentions of the Bible?

That is pretty much my thought too. If the death of jesus was gods plan (thy will be done) then what REALLY was the cost to god that his human avatar had to die? It's not as if jesus was the only human to be crucified OR had to face the reality of death.

 

[LOki]

Really? Why don't you explain your opinion on my comments and how you came to that opinion. If you can, that is.

An invitation. Sweet.

Logic is subjective. I think faith is perfectly logical given that man cannot even begin to comprehend or explain the world around him or the universe.

There is nothing logical about not being able to "begin to comprehend or explain the world . . . or the universe" and then abandoning reason in favor of faith by making up an explanation of the universe, based on nothing, and then calling it "comprehension."

You have faith in what you call 'logic', . . .

My belief in the validity of sound logic as a tool for understanding is validated by evidence--thus, I am not excersizing faith in logic.

. . . but you cannot even begin to say that you fully understand the universe or how it works.

Well, if I were excersizing faith, I couldn't even begin to say that you fully understand the universe or how it works either, but that wouldn't stop me--but sound reasoning using valid logic does.

I'd rather put my faith in the fact that I do not know everything, . . .

The fact is, you DON'T know everything, therefore you don't need faith to believe it . . . unless, of course you actually DO know everything. Then, of course, you wouldn't be capable of faith.

. . . you are putting all of your faith in that you think you know and understand everything.

Complete, and utter nonsense, based upon a complete and utter misunderstanding of what logic is, and what those who use valid logic claim they "know."

I'd bet on my point of view being more accurate any day.

You'd lose.

 

[Newby]

Really? Why don't you explain your opinion on my comments and how you came to that opinion. If you can, that is.

An invitation. Sweet.

Logic is subjective. I think faith is perfectly logical given that man cannot even begin to comprehend or explain the world around him or the universe.

There is nothing logical about not being able to "begin to comprehend or explain the world . . . or the universe" and then abandoning reason in favor of faith by making up an explanation of the universe, based on nothing, and then calling it "comprehension."

Where did I say that I abandoned reason in favor of faith? I don't believe I did. Can you deny that man does not fully comprehend the universe, how it came into existance, it's extent, or how it functions? How can you be arrogant enough to believe that your human 'reasoning' is going to explain anything accurately? It explains it as far as you can understand it, period. That proves nothing. It certainly doesn't prove that there isn't a higher power, so to automattically dismiss the possibility of one because you foolishly think you can even begin to understand the universe seems rather illogical.

My belief in the validity of sound logic as a tool for understanding is validated by evidence--thus, I am not excersizing faith in logic.

You have evidence that a higher being had no hand in the creation of the universe? Really? Why don't you share that evidence with us then.

Well, if I were excersizing faith, I couldn't even begin to say that you fully understand the universe or how it works either, but that wouldn't stop me--but sound reasoning using valid logic does.

If your sound reasoning and valid logic tells you that no human can fully understand the universe or how it works, then how can you put any credibility into a logic that cannot give you all the answers? You are missing too many pieces in order to soundly reason or come to any logical conclusion about the creation or the functionality of the universe. Therefore, how can you elimate any possibilities at this point? Again, let's hear your evidence that a higher power had absolutely no involvement in the creation of the universe.

The fact is, you DON'T know everything, therefore you don't need faith to believe it . . . unless, of course you actually DO know everything. Then, of course, you wouldn't be capable of faith.

I think I said that I don't know everything, I actually stated that in my post, and I don't need faith to believe that I don't know everything. I said it was a 'fact' that I didn't know everything, therefore that opens the doors for other possibilities, which is where faith comes in since those other possibilities cannot yet be proven or unproven, and most likely never will be.

. . . you are putting all of your faith in that you think you know and understand everything.

Complete, and utter nonsense, based upon a complete and utter misunderstanding of what logic is, and what those who use valid logic claim they "know."

You can say 'complete and utter nonsense' and sit on your high horse all day long, but that is exactly what he is doing. He's placing faith in man made logic, in what man is able to comprehend as if that is the end-all/be-all to answer every question about the universe.

I'd bet on my point of view being more accurate any day.

You'd lose.

Quite the arrogant one, aren't you? You're welcome to your opinion, sorry that I cannot share in with you.... well actually, I'm not really sorry.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I don't think your aunt was trying to control what you believe or don't believe either, and I didn't say that you did control her behavior, I said that if you had your desires, you would have silenced her.

Well, I guess you're telepathic, too. So, then, tell me, since you can read my mind, how would I have silenced her?

I'm calling a spade a spade, Mr. Mountain Man. You are no different than the people that you are critisizing or ranting about in your posts. No different at all, just the flip side of the coin.

Well, all human beings are hypocritical and contradictory in some way. I don't force anyone to believe what I believe or to live or behave by what I believe. I attempt to be a good person, a wise person, a compassionate person, and an intelligent person. I try to treat everyone as I wish to be treated. If I was gay, and I was in love with someone who I perceived as my soulmate, I'd want to get married. And if I was married, I'd want to be equal to all of the other married people in my culture. I wouldn't want to be a second class citizen. I try to operate by the Golden Rule.

Can you say the same for yourself?

An ex-Marine that visits gay bars and is a lib... very interesting combination...

Thank you. That's a very nice complement, saying that I'm interesting. You probably didn't know that in Denver gay bars have the best drink specials? 50 cent drafts and half off ALL liquor! And what a fun crowd! Only the lesbians get in fights, there isn't any macho posing, everyone's really nice to eachother, and all the fag hags are horny. And, I'm man enough not to feel threatened by a gay man hitting on me. I just let him know I'm straight. If he gets pushy, he gets punched. Just like a straight man getting too pushy with a woman. Most of the time, though, the homosexual men know you're straight cause you look it and they respect that because there's no chance of putting it in your butt. Its just like hitting on a hot lesbian: pointless.

The #1 reason I'm a liberal? To protect the environment and save wilderness so that I can spend time in the mountains away from civilization, factory pollution, traffic, and the complexities of the modern world. Ever spent time miles away from the nearest road, deep in untrammeled wilderness? I get a real sense of peace. That's my church. Climbing mountains is how I worship. And I don't want my religion desecrated.