Thanks. Someone has stay in Texas and fight the bastards.
I just take care of my cats.
One meets the nicest people at A|N. I am so glad I don't have to search for them at www.christianmingles.com :-)))
If you listen to the TV commercials their tout is fallacious on its face. They insinuate that "God" matched the member with someone of perfect compatibility when, in fact, a computer program does it. Now, somehow, I think the John Lilly notion that the computer may be a legitimate "simulation-of-God" is lost on the average Christian. No, his God is a grey-beard loon in a white toga who tells Saint Peter who can and who cannot enter the Pearly Gates to meet the 79 Virgins, er, ah, I mean... Drat, wrong religion. The only novelty not found in most computer dating services is an apotheosis: a creature of myth, though of course there is nothing illegitimate about seeing the Internet as God. Is there?
Yeah, a good husband is hard to find. A hard one, well, that is another story.
I met my wife BethKZ on a dating site (not Christian Mingles). I am not much into the club scene or whatnot, and I was a homeless vet (no money for clubbing anyway).
Curiously, I was only looking for pen pals on the site. (I'd vowed never again to marry after my first wife pilloried me in divorce court because of my epilepsy—that was why I was homeless, the court awarded her my VA benefits except for $20/month, and would not overturn that after she got a $120k/year job).
I know Beth didn't marry me for my riches or military benefits.
It's pretty hypocritical to call yourself a freedom fighter when you are really trying to deprive people of their freedom.
But note this research that is showing another form of hypocrissy. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201204/are...
In essence, if you are a man who is homophobic, you are far more likely to have a physical reaction to male with male sexuality where non-homophobes do not. Therefore, if you have a physical reaction, you are either a closet bisexual or homosexual.
If THAT news would get around, then people like the ones you mention - as well as a lot of Christian ministers and Muslim Imams - will not be so quick to publicly advertise their own desire for homosexual sex on such a public forum.
Illustrates why I continue to argue that Freud was right on when he was right on and he was right on about what he termed "projection." As I understand it, projection is when one casts off unwanted personal traits or tendencies and projects them onto others so that he or she can appear to dislike those traits or tendencies so that people will think he or she is the last person on earth who might have those traits or tendencies. I have had personal experience and confirm this as true.
That would be an extreme form of projection, if so.
My only problem with Schaeffer is that he is STILL a believer. Remember the Sam Harris-Andrew Sullivan debate on whether the mainstream religions are "enablers" (A.A. term) for the evangelical nutjobs? I for one took the Harris position: yes, they are enablers. That is, the Methodist who lives next door makes Joel Osteen possible. No, I am not saying Osteen is an evangelical; he's just handy, and if we taxed the guy's actual income and that of his Houston, Texas megachurch, we could pay off a portion of the Chinese debt. Joel Osteen enables the Ralph Reeds. Osteen and Reid enable the war on women, the war on the sexual minorities, and the war on the poor.
I wonder, do these men have any moral core? There is no sign of ethics in their mutterings. Glad I don't have a TV; what a waste of a perfectly fine day to see or hear or read their nonsense.
Joan, the problem is that they THINK they have a moral core and/or ethics ... because of their supposed god. They think that because they side with that particular deity that they automatically are "righteous" (whatever that means) and therefore are ethical / moral / whatever. The phenomenon is not much different from the proposition that says that if god did it, it MUST be moral, a proposition I suspect most of us emphatically disagree with.