Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

Another thing I like, is how this list isn't big on pointing out misuse of their and there and whatnot. But I still feel shame when I see I've done 'em like that. Conditioning! It's what's for Dinner! -- yes, even I'm like "what?", when I read me, sometimes. Sorta. But not as much as others --

RE: Christian's: Paranoid or not

> -Original Message- > From: Dinner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2007 5:01 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not > > Depends on what your definition of is is*. I thought that you were > affronted &g

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

On Dec 8, 2007 10:38 AM, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: Dinner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ... > > I mean worst case, that still sounds more open, to me. > > It IS more open - I never said it wasn't. The basic idea is that it's > unknowable - there c

RE: Christian's: Paranoid or not

> -Original Message- > From: Zaphod Beeblebrox [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 10:13 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not > > Hey Now! what are you trying to tell me Jim? :) What, me? No

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

Hey Now! what are you trying to tell me Jim? :) On 12/8/07, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That which strikes us (good, bad, ugly, funny, etc) we share here. The ones > that resonate become those long threads. Some of us are less tactful that > others of course and that leads to long

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

, 2007 1:55 PM, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 1:38 PM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not > > > > ah

RE: Christian's: Paranoid or not

> -Original Message- > From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 1:38 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not > > ahhh. Well yeah given the current Golden Compass froufrala yes you > might see > thi

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

now Anyway, thanks for the clarification Dana On Dec 8, 2007 9:58 AM, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -Original Message- > > From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 8:39 AM > > To: CF-Community > > Subje

RE: Christian's: Paranoid or not

> -Original Message- > From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 8:39 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not > > I have not especially noticed any attacks on atheism. Perhaps they went > under my radar

RE: Christian's: Paranoid or not

> -Original Message- > From: Dinner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 4:42 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not > > 1*:* a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is > unknown and

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

gt; > Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 10:07 AM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not > > > > you know what, I agree with Sam here. I'm not the most religious person > > and > > I don't practice at ALL but I'm a

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

On Dec 7, 2007 10:24 AM, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Agnosticism is NOT "there might be a God" as most people seem to think. > Rather it's "there is no possible way for man to determine and answer to > the > question so we're just going to stop thinking about it". Ah, language, t

RE: Christian's: Paranoid or not

> -Original Message- > From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 8:51 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not > > > Jim wrote: > > Although the question may still be open as to how an observe

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

> Jim wrote: > Although the question may still be open as to how an observer might affect > the outcome of wave function collapse there's nothing that even remotely > suggests that that outcome would be "what we want it to be". > Hmm, I wasn't connecting anything to QM specifically, simply pointin

RE: Christian's: Paranoid or not

> -Original Message- > From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 4:26 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not > > > Jim wrote: > > Lately there's been a lot of attacks on atheism and I&#

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

> Jim wrote: > Lately there's been a lot of attacks on atheism and I'll happily admit that > I've probably struck back harder than was necessary. If you go back to the definition of Buddhism (teachings to guide one to directly experiencing reality), it leads one to ask what reality is. Quantum p

RE: Christian's: Paranoid or not

> On 12/7/07, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've never seen someone on this list defend having that in the > pledge. > > The people that do are probably the same numbers you complain to > have. > > Difference is they don't whine on this list, yet you do :) > > > > I'm not complaining, don't re

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

I don't mind it there but if it bothers you so much let's remove it. :) On Dec 7, 2007 11:14 AM, Zaphod Beeblebrox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Golly Sam, I didn't realize I was whining about things, sorry 'bout > that. I also didn't realize that we're all in agreement that the word > "god" shoul

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

Golly Sam, I didn't realize I was whining about things, sorry 'bout that. I also didn't realize that we're all in agreement that the word "god" should be removed from the pledge! That's great news! On 12/7/07, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've never seen someone on this list defend having

RE: Christian's: Paranoid or not

> -Original Message- > From: Dana [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 10:07 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not > > you know what, I agree with Sam here. I'm not the most religious person > and >

RE: Christian's: Paranoid or not

> -Original Message- > From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 4:01 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not > > > Jim wrote: > > I also want to be clear about another thing that often gets

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

I've never seen someone on this list defend having that in the pledge. The people that do are probably the same numbers you complain to have. Difference is they don't whine on this list, yet you do :) I'm not complaining, don't really mind, just pointing out your wasting your breath here. On Dec

RE: Christian's: Paranoid or not

> -Original Message- > From: Dinner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 6:20 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not > > On Dec 7, 2007 2:01 AM, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I

RE: Christian's: Paranoid or not

> -Original Message- > From: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 1:31 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not > > So as an atheist your goal is to eradicate religion which will in turn > eliminate the a

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

To expand on this, I find it very funny that conservative christians are having such an internal struggle with who to vote for. Huckabee would seem to be their only choice given that he's an ordained minister, but with not very much ability to win. Mit Romney has all the "moral character" and win

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

no, there is a difference. That's why I'll hang out with religious people, but don't really care to associate with child molesters. That said, I still feel that religion in general is a blight on humanities forward movement. And while I don't see any proselytizing going on, the reason I see the

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

there is a difference. And spare me the jokes about how it isn't. There is and you know it. Or are you really saying that exposure to religion is traumatic and soul-scarring 100% of the time? On 12/7/07, Zaphod Beeblebrox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > you don't see anyone proselytizing child mole

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

you don't see anyone proselytizing child molestors, but you still see all of us attacking them too. :) On 12/7/07, C. Hatton Humphrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I've never seen anyone proselytize for a religion on this list > > > > Really? I guess we're not reading the same list then :) >

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

> > I've never seen anyone proselytize for a religion on this list > > Really? I guess we're not reading the same list then :) > > I'm seeing a lot of Christian proselytizing here... I'd have to wonder what you're seeing... unless it's the use of capitalization that I and others use, most of the t

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

you know what, I agree with Sam here. I'm not the most religious person and I don't practice at ALL but I'm a bit incredulous about the rants I have seen here. Yes, religion has been the excuse for a lot of evil deeds. We get it. But there is nothing inherent in religion which leads to evil; on the

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

+1000. - Original Message - From: "Sam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 1:29 AM Subject: Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not > I've never seen anyone proselytize for a religion on this list yet at > least o

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

On Dec 7, 2007 2:01 AM, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jim wrote: > > I also want to be clear about another thing that often gets confused: > > Atheism is not "anti-religion". Atheism is a declaration that no > > supernatural God exists. > > So how about Buddhism? From Wiki: > > Buddh

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

> Jim wrote: > I also want to be clear about another thing that often gets confused: > Atheism is not "anti-religion". Atheism is a declaration that no > supernatural God exists. So how about Buddhism? From Wiki: Buddhism is a set of teachings often described as a non-theistic [1][2] religion[3

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

On Dec 6, 2007 10:29 PM, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've never seen anyone proselytize for a religion on this list Really? I guess we're not reading the same list then :) I'm seeing a lot of Christian proselytizing here... -- Sean A Corfield -- (904) 302-SEAN An Architect's View -- http://

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

So as an atheist your goal is to eradicate religion which will in turn eliminate the arduous choir of being atheist? On Dec 6, 2007 9:58 PM, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Atheism, by its very nature, is a reflective stance. Atheism only exists > because of religion. It exists to give me

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

I've never seen anyone proselytize for a religion on this list yet at least once a month religion is attacked here. One would actually think all religious people are lunatic fundamentalists and it's up to the atheist here to save the world, based on reading this list at least. On Dec 6, 2007 8:48

RE: Christian's: Paranoid or not

> -Original Message- > From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:24 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not > > > JimBo wrote: > > Again Atheists have to tackle these emotional and intelle

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

On Dec 6, 2007 7:24 PM, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think you should read Quantum Evolution. I think you should read this: http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/Definition_of_Atheism_Dictionaries_Atheists_Others_Define_Atheism.htm

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

> JimBo wrote: > Again Atheists have to tackle these emotional and intellectual problems. > It's scary to think that there's no plan. Disheartening to know that > there's nobody you can call out in the dark. But then again, I'm not sure you're an atheist. Atheists worship no Deity, but you seem

RE: Christian's: Paranoid or not

> -Original Message- > From: Gruss Gott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 12:14 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not > > > Jerry wrote: > > If the parents are Christians, I am pretty sure they

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

> Jerry wrote: > If the parents are Christians, I am pretty sure they want their kids to have > faith that Jesus is the Son of God and their savior. But how can children, who aren't deemed legally able to make decisions on their own, capable of faith? Wouldn't they just be parroting things told t

RE: Christian's: Paranoid or not

orfield [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:45 AM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not On Dec 6, 2007 7:05 AM, Jerry Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If the parents are Christians, I am pretty sure they want their kids to have >

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

On Dec 6, 2007 7:05 AM, Jerry Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If the parents are Christians, I am pretty sure they want their kids to have > faith that Jesus is the Son of God and their savior. That whole deal of > spending eternity in Hell instead of Heaven and all. Or, put another way, if t

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

> > Why do children need faith? > > If the parents are Christians, I am pretty sure they want their kids to have faith that Jesus is the Son of God and their savior. That whole deal of spending eternity in Hell instead of Heaven and all. ~~

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

On Dec 5, 2007 3:44 PM, Cameron Childress <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At the same time though, I don't look down on someone for being right > handed, left handed or even choosing to change (or not change) their > dominant hand. Wether your handedness is biological or not is not really > relevant

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

> >Larry- > > > >I am right handed, but over the past two years have learned to use > the > >mouse with my left hand to avoid repetitive stress discomfort. > > > >Not sure what that means to the initial argument. > > > >-Cameron > > > Not the same. That's more of an executive control set of fun

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

>You mean there aren't women that choose to have sex with another >woman, or men that choose to have sex with another man? > >On Dec 3, 2007 12:08 PM, Sean Corfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Religion is a choice, homosexuality is not. While I'm not going to get into this old argument, (there

RE: Christian's: Paranoid or not

> -Original Message- > From: Jerry Barnes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 7:40 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not > > "Of course they're intentional - the author's made no secret of

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

> Jerry wrote: > about the material. If done correctly, it can build faith, instead of > weaken it. > Why do children need faith? ~| Get the answers you are looking for on the ColdFusion Labs Forum direct from active programmers

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

"Of course they're intentional - the author's made no secret of that." You put far more research or focus into than I have then. I just read the book, got a feeling that it was anti-religious. If you read the earlier messages, I never said anyone needed to be protected from the books. I said pa

RE: Christian's: Paranoid or not

> -Original Message- > From: Jerry Barnes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2007 10:23 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not > > Regardless, I still think the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is a > book > w

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

> Jerry wrote: > I am sure there are many people who claim this and call themselves > Christian. > Well, I was defining the terms so that you understand what I mean which is important for these 2 series because one contains allegory of stories from another book(s), The Bible, while the other is an

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

> > I'm defining religion as the set of devotional and ritual observances and > practices *associated* with a *faith*. > Okay. You have the right to define religion however you like. > > That is, one can be a Christian but not be religious. Put another way, > one can believe in Jesus' philoso

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

"Yikes! Don't you have a county library with a children's department where they can safely browse whatever they want? That seems awfully restrictive (both for you and the children)." LOL. It's a time issue. With soccer, basketball, dance class, teaching part time, etc. it's hard to squeeze libra

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

On Dec 3, 2007 9:11 AM, Sean Corfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 28, 2007 6:29 AM, Jerry Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At this stage in my children's life, I wouldn't let them > > read Stephen King (the two who can read are 8 & 6). > > I don't think I'd want anyone under about 16

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

I think the point is that there are few people that are "born christian", vs born gay, or whatever the PC term is. ;-) (Bastarts took happy AND the rainbow!!! A! =)) LOL *sigh* life is so much turning. Ha ha. Born christian- you born-agains liked that, right? I slay me. -- Many a write

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

You mean there aren't women that choose to have sex with another woman, or men that choose to have sex with another man? On Dec 3, 2007 12:08 PM, Sean Corfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Religion is a choice, homosexuality is not. ~~~

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

On Nov 16, 2007 4:33 PM, Dinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How much does one tell their kid(s)? How much should one "protect" > their fragile little consciousnesses? > > My dad has some AWESOME stories, about hitchhiking around the > world, life in 'burque "back in the day", etc.. Just great st

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

On Nov 28, 2007 6:29 AM, Jerry Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At this stage in my children's life, I wouldn't let them > read Stephen King (the two who can read are 8 & 6). I don't think I'd want anyone under about 16 reading Stephen King... > they are mentally able to process, filter, and c

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

On Nov 19, 2007 3:51 AM, Jerry Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Can you say be anti-religious is okay while being > anti-homosexuality is not? Religion is a choice, homosexuality is not. Mostly people accept you can't be "anti-black" these days but a lot of Christians seem to think it's OK to b

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

What about the indoctrination of The Passion of Christ? ~| Download the latest ColdFusion 8 utilities including Report Builder, plug-ins for Eclipse and Dreamweaver updates. http;//www.adobe.com/cfusion/entitlement/index.cfm?e=lab

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

On Nov 15, 2007 8:08 AM, C. Hatton Humphrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Take a look at this ad created by Dove (caution, includes > rapid images of women in undies and surgical procedures): > http://www.campaignforrealbeauty.com/home.asp I think that's a very good message to get out there - it's

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

On Nov 15, 2007 6:45 AM, Scott Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > When I talk about mainstream, I think of people like my mom, she's the most > loving, tolerant, forgiving person I know, she doesn't wear her faith like a > badge of honor, she sees it as a call to do for others less fortunate, to

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

On Nov 15, 2007 6:42 AM, J.J. Merrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > you know Harry Potter is warping our children also. The Episcopalian church on the corner near me runs a series of indoctrination camps for kids in the summer and one year they focused on Harry Potter as their theme. They did Star

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

> Jerry wrote: > A book containing Christian allegory has nothing to do with religion? Wow. > That is an interesting stance to take. > I'm defining religion as the set of devotional and ritual observances and practices *associated* with a *faith*. That is, one can be a Christian but not be relig

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

"So how is LWW pro-religion? I would say it contains Christian allegory (unintentional or not), but that has nothing to do with religion." A book containing Christian allegory has nothing to do with religion? Wow. That is an interesting stance to take. Anyway, The Lion, the Witch, and the Ward

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

> Jerry wrote: > Some are. Some fiction book are pro-religion like The Lion, the Witch, and > the Wardrobe. So how is LWW pro-religion? I would say it contains Christian allegory (unintentional or not), but that has nothing to do with religion. His Dark Materials, on the other hand, is all abo

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

"Well my point is more that fiction books aren't typically agnostic documentaries, they're just made up stories about stuff." Okay. Some are. Some fiction book are pro-religion like The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. Other books are pure fiction like the Miss Marple books (I read several of

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

> Jerry wrote: > Sure. But the church, a gun, a lead pipe, or a candlestick can also but > used for good things as well. I don't believe that was pointed out. Maybe > you are arguing that a church is assumed to be good and the reader should > know this from the start. I didn't get that picture

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

> In His Dark Materials the church is evil, but that doesn't mean > they're anti-religious any more than The Orient Express is anti-human > because there's a murderer in it. > We are each entitled to our own opinion. Again, I wasn't doing an in depth analysis of the book. My days of writing ter

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

> Jerry wrote: > In these books, I think it was definitely anti-religious (organized religion > that is). Not so much anti-spiritual. They talk a lot about spiritual > things. > In His Dark Materials the church is evil, but that doesn't mean they're anti-religious any more than The Orient Expres

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

> > I was keying off the "why you think the book is wrong" bit, and wondering > about putting things in context. Do you really use (you personally) > specific examples, like books, or do you go for the more general, "ideas"? > I read these three books before the whole anti-religious thing became

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

On Nov 19, 2007 4:51 AM, Jerry Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "What's wrong with being anti-religious?" > > Are you asking me? In my post, I just said I think (opinion) that they > are > anti-religious. I didn't say that was wrong. However, if you start > saying > being anti-religious is o

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

"What's wrong with being anti-religious?" Are you asking me? In my post, I just said I think (opinion) that they are anti-religious. I didn't say that was wrong. However, if you start saying being anti-religious is ok, you open up a tricky debate on what other opinions are ok. Can you say be a

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

On Nov 16, 2007 8:10 AM, Jerry Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As for the books, I have read them. IMO, I believe they are > anti-religious. However, if you are a Christian, you should allow your > children to read the books (at an appropriate age) so that you can have a > dialogue wit

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

>"This is the action of one person who may or may not be secure in their own >faith" > >Exactly. > >Only those insecure in their faith or beliefs succumb to this type of >behavior (this applies to all kinds of groups-not just religious). > >In actuality, Christianity is built on being challenged.

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

"This is the action of one person who may or may not be secure in their own faith" Exactly. Only those insecure in their faith or beliefs succumb to this type of behavior (this applies to all kinds of groups-not just religious). In actuality, Christianity is built on being challenged. The apost

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

Well done Zaph...exactly what i was going to say in response :) On Nov 15, 2007 8:41 AM, Zaphod Beeblebrox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I take this back. This is the action of one person who may or may not > be secure in their own faith. I know a lot of christians who wouldn't > forward this em

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

My church meets IN a movie theater... I guess we are all going to hell. Though there are times when they will turn around some of the movie displays because they are really pretty offensive... Balls of Fury was one of them... it was like 10 feet tall and had a girl bending over and said something

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

> Scott wrote: > If your faith is affected by a movie, then you need to re-examine your > faith. > Silly. It's harder to indoctrinate children that way. ~| Get the answers you are looking for on the ColdFusion Labs Forum direct

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

> I take this back. This is the action of one person who may or may not > be secure in their own faith. I know a lot of christians who wouldn't > forward this email on and either enjoy the movie for what it is or > just not go to it at all. It's just a case of the extremes making > themselves he

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

I take this back. This is the action of one person who may or may not be secure in their own faith. I know a lot of christians who wouldn't forward this email on and either enjoy the movie for what it is or just not go to it at all. It's just a case of the extremes making themselves heard while

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

It's religion. Don't try to understand it. It is not logical. On Nov 15, 2007 10:06 AM, Zaphod Beeblebrox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Is the christian faith so fragile that a movie, a song, or even > knowing someone who's not a christian can destroy it? > > zB ~~~

Re: Christian's: Paranoid or not

No, people just like to talk... you know Harry Potter is warping our children also. On 11/15/07, Zaphod Beeblebrox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My wife is out of town so I logged onto her email account to make sure > she hasn't been emailed our latest indoor soccer schedule. I'm going > throug

RE: Christian's: Paranoid or not

I don't think mainstream Christianity is that fragile. However the fundies are. Like I've said before, the fundies aren't the majority, not by a long shot, but they want everyone to think that they are, so they scream the loudest, over the most inane things. When I talk about mainstream, I think o