Tis the season...deja vu anyone?

[alphabassettgrrl]

Originally Posted by Disneyphile

I keep reading this as "fellatious", which has an entirely different meaning.

That made me giggle.

[Disneyphile]

Originally Posted by alphabassettgrrl

That made me giggle.

It can also make ya gag, if you go too deep.

[alphabassettgrrl]

All a matter of degree!

All things in moderation? Hmm... maybe not all things... Most things in moderation. Including moderation. There we go.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by Disneyphile

It can also make ya gag, if you go too deep.

Yeah; you'll never have that problem with me.

[CoasterMatt]

Kevy never gags.

[Gn2Dlnd]

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

Why must god be a man?

I'm sure God asks himself this all the time.

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

What if god was one of us?

God is all of us.

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

Does god like bacon?
How about shiny things?

God loves bacon.
And shiny things.

[wendybeth]

And kitties.

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by alphabassettgrrl

I'm not sure I defend public religious displays either.



One can't prove a negative, only fail to prove a positive. So I disagree that there is evidence for the nonexistance of god. One can think of god as unnecessary, possibly, but non-existance cannot actually be proven.

People believe things. Some believe in god, of various forms, and some believe in a lack of god. Both are opinions.

Agreed.

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

And the proof of free will is?

(I think there are those in the scientific community that dispute that - though I'm not one of them - or even a member of the scientific community)

Sorry you think my Lapland remark mocking, but I'm an existentialist with heavy phenomenological leanings - thus there is no truth other than what we create. For my personal experience that puts God and Lapland in the same category, though I've chosen to believe on and not the other, how could I fault someoen with thinking differently.

As to the horrors of religion on the world, I would broaden those to belong to people who claim to know truth - then you could lump the secular dogmatists (i.e. Nazis, Communists, etc.) in that category as well.

Agreed.

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by flippyshark

Sir Dillon, in response to "We're just questioning the merits of that particular sign," you said:



Okay, questioning the merits of a sign's content is akin to questioning its legal right to be presented on public property? Am I missing something here? Those are very clearly two different things.

1) - I support the legal right for the sign to be displayed.

2) - I don't think the message as written is as effective as it could be.

Where does the second one in any way negate the first? You say they are akin and add two exclamation points.

Heck, theoretically, I could go further and say

1) - I support the legal right for the sign to be displayed

2) - I completely disagree with the message and think it is poorly worded to boot.

And there is still no contradiction. Nor does the second negate the first. Nor are they akin.

What's the deal?

No deal.

Because so many question it, its message not conforming to what some cosider their version of "good taste," and that it was equal space (which happened to be next to the tree/nativity scene) was used to remove via the court of public opinion; and that opinion used the first (questioning it) in substantiating the second (having it removed on allegations that it was hate speech and amounted to being illegal).

Thank you for the response.