From: Peter on 4 May 2010 07:02 "Bill Graham" wrote in message news:feqdnRdL4qPZMELWnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...> >> > Yes, and our government has defined marriage, so all non-felons should be > allowed to participate in it. In what State are felons not permitted to marry? -- Peter From: Peter on 4 May 2010 07:29 "Bill Graham" wrote in message news:TZadnWEmZvyvJ0LWnZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d(a)giganews.com...> >> > At least you have a home, since many of your political brothers are also > atheists, and tolerant of same. But I am truly a, "Man without a country". > My conservative heroes, like Rush, are intolerant of atheists, and insult > us on a regular basis. That says it all: Rush, the entertainer, by his onw admission - hero - great oxymoron. <\begin sarcastic tag> You have really proven your ability to think and analyze. <\end sarcastic tag> >To me this is the one place where their normal ability to think logically >breaks down. I can listen to, and agree with, their point of view for >hours, and then, seemingly out of nowhere, they will reach out and insult >my intelligence by calling me a, "bad citizen", because I don't accept >their stupid Christian myth, and believe the whole universe, (with more >galaxies in it than there are grains of sand on all the beaches on earth), >was created by some mean looking old bearded man in the sky that created >man "in his own image". This is sure a crazy world......... Can you think allegory -- Peter drill baby drill - are the tags really needed here? From: Peter on 4 May 2010 07:35 "Bill Graham" wrote in message news:cc-dndMZwrYiI0LWnZ2dnUVZ_hGdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...> > "Peter" wrote in message > news:4bdf65ad$0$27713$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com... >> "tony cooper" wrote in message >> news:l0jst5d49c4iv5u2movb6d44mnfpjrhc3q(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sun, 2 May 2010 21:03:49 -0700, Savageduck >>> wrote: >>> >>>>> You do know that "bigotry" is the obstinate or intolerant devotion to >>>>> one's own opinions and prejudices? Atheists who are intolerant of the >>>>> religious can be bigots. >>>> >>>>Agreed. >>>>I believe those of faith are free to worship as they please. >>> >>> The gist of your rant was that the "betrayed" should abandon their >>> religion. If they want to continue to be a member of that religion, >>> even though that religion holds them to be wrong on this issue, >>> shouldn't they be free to worship as they please? Where is your >>> tolerance? >>> >>>>>> I find myself comfortable as an atheist, not having to favor one >>>>>> religion over another. >>>>> >>>>> So am I. However, I would never suggest to someone else that they >>>>> should leave their religion or question why they don't. That seems >>>>> exceedingly presumptious to me. >>>> >>>>I would only suggest that move if the person in question is being >>>>tormented by that religion and leaving the religion is the only action >>>>which makes sense. >>> >>> Makes sense to who? It doesn't make a damn bit of difference if it >>> makes sense or not to you. It's what makes sense to *them* that >>> counts. >>> >>> The hypocrisy of the whole thing is that we have the devoutly >>> religious who want the rest of us to do as they want, and then we have >>> the unreligious who want the religious people to change. >>> >>> I don't really see a difference between a bible-thumper who says "I >>> suggest you become religious" and a nonreligious person saying "I >>> suggest you leave your religion". They are both proselytizing. >>> >> Agreed. In this small group we have a professed atheist who worships. In >> the vast majority of his posts he refers to his money. >> >> -- >> Peter > Worshiping money and wanting your government to take it away from you and > give it to someone else are two different things. I don't worship money. I > simply worked and saved and invested a percentage of it in American > business for most of my life, and I resent it when my government steals it > to give to those who didn't. If you call that, "worshiping" money, then I > am guilty as charged. The vast majority of your postings point to selfish worship of your wallet. You have abdicated your social responsibility as a human being. -- Peter From: Neil Harrington on 4 May 2010 10:06 "tony cooper" wrote in message news:lbtut5tfrienjsc7in7kqsqstgoos5p8e5(a)4ax.com...> On Mon, 03 May 2010 19:29:24 -0400, tony cooper > wrote: > >>On Sun, 2 May 2010 22:48:31 -0700, Savageduck >> wrote: >> >>>On 2010-05-02 22:31:53 -0700, tony cooper >>>said: >>> >>>> On Sun, 2 May 2010 21:03:49 -0700, Savageduck >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> You do? Who are these "upper echelon" people? >>>>> >>>>> Where do you want to start? The Papacy, The College of Cardinals, >>>> >>>> Get serious, Duck. Who has any idea of what the College of Cardinals >>>> do except when its puff-of-smoke-time? >>> >>>They play upper management to the diocese. >> >>A Cardinal, in the Catholic church, is a level of the hierarchy of the >>church. A Cardinal may be in charge of a diocese or an archdiocese. >>All Cardinals are members of the College of Cardinals, but the College >>is only convened on the death of a Pope or when the Pope summons them >>for a consistory (a special meeting). That's a rare event. >> > > Hoist on my own petard. I should not of capitalized the word You mean you "should not HAVE capitalized the word [ . . . ]" :-) > "cardinal" above. The word is capitalized when it is used as part of > a title (Cardinal Jones or College of Cardinals) but not when it > refers to a job description. Just so. The same principle applies to titles generally. From: Peter on 4 May 2010 10:23 "Chris H" wrote in message news:LQGEykCvjC4LFAm9(a)phaedsys.demon.co.uk...> In message <4be01b06$0$790$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com>, Peter > writes >>Your tolerance for the belief of others is almost as underwhelming as >>your ignorance and/or lack of veracity. > > Anyone is free to believe what they like as a faith. I tolerate all > faiths etc. (even though most faiths do not tolerate others who do not > believe as they do as demonstrated above) > > However: Re-writing history is not something I tolerate in anyone. > > I have not argued with anyone's faith. However I will argue with the > ludicrous statement that the bible has not changed in over 5000 years... > Some parts are only just 1500 years old. > What parts of Tanakh have changed? Feel free to Google the term. -- Peter First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last