FamilyLife Forums

chaz345:

Tubalcain:

chaz345:

Tubalcain:

chaz345:

Am I the only one who finds Tubal/Lynn/whoever's referring to another poster as a demon or as Satan to be more than a little over the top?

Maybe even more out of touch with reality than  calling FoTF one of the most evil organizations ever conceived.

You don't know what irony is, right?

 

What statements have I made,  stated as fact like you so often  do,  that are similarly out of touch with reality?

This silly business of deciding I'm this other person sure suffices, but your buddy TDH has swallowed itm which doesn't say much about her.  Go ahead and think what you want to think.  Whether I'm me or some 3-eyed alien from the Planet Bismoll you still can't debate me or anyone else.

So far in your time here you haven't made a single statement that is in the slightest bit debatable, just your own opinions stated as absolute fact.  And for a lawyer you sure do a lousy job at presenting any sort of evidence to back your so called points.

I've seen you give a bye on things like that to your bedfellows.  There's just a double standard.

Look, for example, at the emotionalistic responses whiningly asserting "abortion  is murder" against the wisdom of the ages?  Why don't you demand their source?  Instead, you excuse their categorical whines, because you agree. 

chaz345:

Tubalcain:

chaz345:

Tubalcain:

chaz345:

Am I the only one who finds Tubal/Lynn/whoever's referring to another poster as a demon or as Satan to be more than a little over the top?

Maybe even more out of touch with reality than  calling FoTF one of the most evil organizations ever conceived.

You don't know what irony is, right?

 

What statements have I made,  stated as fact like you so often  do,  that are similarly out of touch with reality?

This silly business of deciding I'm this other person sure suffices, but your buddy TDH has swallowed itm which doesn't say much about her.  Go ahead and think what you want to think.  Whether I'm me or some 3-eyed alien from the Planet Bismoll you still can't debate me or anyone else.

There is a HUGE difference between stating my opinion that you are someone else, clearly qualified as my opinion and accompanied by my reasons for my belief, and what you do which is simply state your opinion as fact and provide less than nothing about what you base that opinion on.

Which doesn't bother you a bit when your fellow travellers do it.

TD&H:

Tubalcain:

BTW, how do you get along with the Mormons in Salt Lake?  Or are you The Brethren's agent here?

I do not agree with the LDS.  I like Bud Light (smile)!

I belong to Grace Community Bible Church...and, the only one I am an agent for is Jesus Christ.  I am what I am because of the grace God has given me through His Son.

If you would accept that grace; you could live at peace with your fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.  Then you could give the glory to God; instead, you give the glory to you by argueing your worldly view...which is foolishness to God.

Have a nice day Lynn...Happy Thanksgiving!

You're obviously confused about who I am and the nature of my views but have one on me.  I'm not sure who this "Lynn" is, maybe your mother perhaps. 

chaz345:

Tubalcain:

chaz345:

Tubalcain:

chaz345:

Tubalcain:

chaz345:

Tubalcain:

chaz345:

Hot Ice:

let's not assume as to what's in the hearts of those working at those clinics--we can't possibly know that:  We're NOT GOD.

A point that Tubalcain regularly seems to forget when making bold pronouncements about the evil motivations of those that disagree with him/her.

LOL!  Pot calling the kettle black there.  Chaz's argument consists of nothing but questioning the motives of the other side because of the humongous chip on his shoulder.

I'm not questioning your motives in the least with the above statement,simply pointing out the undeniable fact that you regularly make statements that can only be made by massive assumption or by pretending to be God.

If I were speculating as to WHY you did what you did, then you;d have a point. As usual,you don't. 


Care to try to show me where I've stated, in anything approaching the absolute terms you use, what is in another person's heart?

Right here in this post.   

????

How does anything I say in this post say anything about what is in your heart or your motivations for what you do? Or how does it assign evil intent to what you do? Where have I stated opinion as absolute fact as you so often do?

You really are going to need more specific.

I don't "need" to do anything, Shorty.

Then you will continue to be perceived as you are which is basically as a troll.

Do you really think I care what someone so uninformed about the issues and unskilled at debate as you thinks? 

The first one to call another 'troll" is the real troll.  You just can't handle opposing views.

I've got no problem with opposing views. My problem is with people, like yourself, who are so insecure in their own views that they are incapable of stating them without calling anyone who believes differently evil.

I don't think anyone among the posters here with which I've interacted are "evil" but I've not seen much in the way of erudition and hypercognizance either, just repeats of the usual right-wing talking points or whining about language like you do. 

Tubalcain:

chaz345:

Tubalcain:

chaz345:

Tubalcain:

chaz345:

Am I the only one who finds Tubal/Lynn/whoever's referring to another poster as a demon or as Satan to be more than a little over the top?

Maybe even more out of touch with reality than  calling FoTF one of the most evil organizations ever conceived.

You don't know what irony is, right?

 

What statements have I made,  stated as fact like you so often  do,  that are similarly out of touch with reality?

This silly business of deciding I'm this other person sure suffices, but your buddy TDH has swallowed itm which doesn't say much about her.  Go ahead and think what you want to think.  Whether I'm me or some 3-eyed alien from the Planet Bismoll you still can't debate me or anyone else.

There is a HUGE difference between stating my opinion that you are someone else, clearly qualified as my opinion and accompanied by my reasons for my belief, and what you do which is simply state your opinion as fact and provide less than nothing about what you base that opinion on.

Which doesn't bother you a bit when your fellow travellers do it.

Two things.

First, when was the last time you asked someone you agreed with for a source?

And secondly, no one else here comes anywhere near you in terms of stating their opinion as fact.

---

Chaz345

This is an article about abortion in Singapore. Funny how the whole ridiculous overpopulation scare tactics were 180 degrees wrong, now these places are literally dying for babies.
That Singapore would be considering bans on abortions is amazing to me. While not socialist, this city/state is as close to Utopia on earth as one can find. Ive visisted twice, and got the impression that no way they would ever limit abortion....based just on how uber organized and rule oriented etc they seemed.

I wanted to point to the line below (I will try and make it colorful) where the writer talks about how ridiculous the argument is where the person talks of the fact that some children are unwanted, and they sloganize it to "every child a wanted child"

Good stuff.



 Time for Singapore to relook abortion law IT HAS recently been argued that if Singapore wants more babies, one approach that deserves more attention is to render access to abortion harder. This would necessitate that the law, which allows abortion up to 24 weeks of pregnancy without restriction as to reason, be amended. -->

Tan Seow Hon Thu, Jul 24, 2008 The Straits Times	function openEmailWindow(emailToFriendForm) { var emailToFriendPageURL = emailToFriendForm.emailToFriendPageURL.value; emailToFriendForm.action = emailToFriendPageURL; emailToFriendForm.target="_blank"; emailToFriendForm.submit(); }

IT HAS recently been argued that if Singapore wants more babies, one approach that deserves more attention is to render access to abortion harder. This would necessitate that the law, which allows abortion up to 24 weeks of pregnancy without restriction as to reason, be amended.

The current law, the Termination of Pregnancy Act, is a consolidation of abortion laws that have remained substantially the same since 1974. The 1974 Abortion Act had liberalised the 1969 Abortion Act, which was passed contentiously with 32 ayes, 10 nays and one abstention.

An important reason for legalising abortion in 1969 was the widespread incidence of dangerous backstreet abortions. That, however, cannot in itself justify legalising abortion because a criminal activity should not be legally handed over to a dignified profession that does a better job. Whether abortion should be allowed must be determined by other factors.

If so, we must now ask whether the reasons adduced for the laws in 1969 and 1974 remain valid today. The various social goods cited by then-health minister Chua Sian Chin bear some re-examination.

First, the quality of life for children would be improved if they were wanted, he said. Mr Chua noted that this was good for society as 'it is mainly from the ranks of the unwanted children, the illegitimate and broken homes where most of the delinquents, the criminals and the antisocial elements are derived. Our society in Singapore cannot afford to breed such people'.

In contrast, parliamentarian Ng Kah Ting called the logic of the 'every child a wanted child' slogan 'crazy'. It appeared to be based on the right of the child to be wanted, yet abortion deprived the child of the right to live altogether.

Indeed, some have argued that rights of such babies are better protected by counselling women to welcome the pregnancy. Another option would be to establish programmes that help women financially and emotionally to put them up for adoption, which would also help couples unable to conceive.

The second social good Mr Chua cited was the improvement in the net quality of the population if the mentally and physically handicapped may be aborted.

Mr Ng rejected such eugenics reasoning for abortion as it would lead to a slippery slope on which it would be equally justifiable to also legislate to destroy deformed or mentally defective babies, the incurably ill, the old or the economically worthless.

Mr Chua dismissed Mr Ng's concern by saying that 'no community anywhere in the present world, irrespective of its political character, has ever thought of permitting the killing of human beings, as it is generally understood, be they sick, old, infirm, paralysed or totally decrepit'.

Yet, today, Princeton University philosopher Peter Singer can remain a highly regarded academic even though he has propounded the view that severely handicapped newborns may be justifiably killed. This suggests that we need to reconsider whether the slippery slope argument is indeed as far-fetched today as it sounded then.

The third social good was population control for the sake of economic advancement. Mr Chua feared that the population would hit four million by 2010. Ironically, in 2008, Singapore's concern is quite the opposite. We want more babies, so his concern is quite obsolete.

Unlike debates in the West, little was said about the right of women to control their own bodies in our parliamentary debates then. Still, it seemed to have been thought that we could let those who wish to abort choose to do so, and those opposed to abortion could simply not undergo abortion. This argument is unacceptable if the unborn was worthy of protection.

By way of analogy, consider how the slavery laws of South Carolina in 1859, which compelled no white man to own slaves, would still be unacceptable today. While this argument has not yet prevailed in the West to overturn its abortion laws, the changing nature of the abortion debate suggests our laws merit revisiting.

The Select Committee in 1969 did not think it fit to debate whether the foetus had a right to life or whether it had any human rights. Mr Chua suggested the question was how to treat an unwanted pregnancy.

As there is consensus that an innocent life cannot be taken, allowing abortion without restriction as to reason assumes that the unborn is not a life. This means that the law has necessarily taken a stand that life does not begin at conception.

But if the metaphysical question of when life begins is truly unsettled, it would be counter-intuitive not to err on the side of preserving life and disallow abortion. As one critic has noted, if a hunter senses movement behind a bush and shoots at it without making sure it was not caused by a human being, he would be considered highly irresponsible.

Although Mr Ng cited various medical codes and conferences for the view that life began at conception, Mr Chua dismissed them as being religiously motivated. Mr Chua suggested that the considerations governing the regulation of abortion ought to be medical only - the viability of the foetus and the danger of the procedure to the mother.

Medical technologies have advanced since that babies born way much earlier than full term are now viable in the best centres. There have also been more long-term studies that show abortion is not free from adverse effects, psychological and physical, on women. There are also studies that correlate abortion with *** cancer though causality has not been established apodictically. Thus it would be prudent to revisit the medical grounds Mr Chua had cited.

Nearly four decades on from the legalisation of abortion, our changing social goals in relation to fertility and demographics, as well as the advances in medical knowledge, suggest that the reasons which undergirded the law back then may no longer be valid.

It is high time that Parliament reviewed the law.

The writer teaches law at the National University of Singapore. The views expressed are her own. var newwindow; function poptastic(url) { newwindow=window.open(url,'name','height=530,width=800'); if (window.focus) {newwindow.focus()} }

---

Cool Im banned TOO.
Enjoy it Holten and Company!

chaz345:

Tubalcain:

chaz345:

Tubalcain:

chaz345:

Tubalcain:

chaz345:

Am I the only one who finds Tubal/Lynn/whoever's referring to another poster as a demon or as Satan to be more than a little over the top?

Maybe even more out of touch with reality than  calling FoTF one of the most evil organizations ever conceived.

You don't know what irony is, right?

 

What statements have I made,  stated as fact like you so often  do,  that are similarly out of touch with reality?

This silly business of deciding I'm this other person sure suffices, but your buddy TDH has swallowed itm which doesn't say much about her.  Go ahead and think what you want to think.  Whether I'm me or some 3-eyed alien from the Planet Bismoll you still can't debate me or anyone else.

There is a HUGE difference between stating my opinion that you are someone else, clearly qualified as my opinion and accompanied by my reasons for my belief, and what you do which is simply state your opinion as fact and provide less than nothing about what you base that opinion on.

Which doesn't bother you a bit when your fellow travellers do it.

Two things.

First, when was the last time you asked someone you agreed with for a source?

And secondly, no one else here comes anywhere near you in terms of stating their opinion as fact.

Haha....I'm not the one saying "The Bible says that..." which is always an expression of opinion.  You just object because you're bested so often.  At least I argue;  all you do here is whine.

divorce in church:

This is an article about abortion in Singapore. Funny how the whole ridiculous overpopulation scare tactics were 180 degrees wrong, now these places are literally dying for babies.
That Singapore would be considering bans on abortions is amazing to me. While not socialist, this city/state is as close to Utopia on earth as one can find. Ive visisted twice, and got the impression that no way they would ever limit abortion....based just on how uber organized and rule oriented etc they seemed.

I wanted to point to the line below (I will try and make it colorful) where the writer talks about how ridiculous the argument is where the person talks of the fact that some children are unwanted, and they sloganize it to "every child a wanted child"

Good stuff.



 Time for Singapore to relook abortion law IT HAS recently been argued that if Singapore wants more babies, one approach that deserves more attention is to render access to abortion harder. This would necessitate that the law, which allows abortion up to 24 weeks of pregnancy without restriction as to reason, be amended. -->

Tan Seow Hon Thu, Jul 24, 2008 The Straits Times	function openEmailWindow(emailToFriendForm) { var emailToFriendPageURL = emailToFriendForm.emailToFriendPageURL.value; emailToFriendForm.action = emailToFriendPageURL; emailToFriendForm.target="_blank"; emailToFriendForm.submit(); }

IT HAS recently been argued that if Singapore wants more babies, one approach that deserves more attention is to render access to abortion harder. This would necessitate that the law, which allows abortion up to 24 weeks of pregnancy without restriction as to reason, be amended.

The current law, the Termination of Pregnancy Act, is a consolidation of abortion laws that have remained substantially the same since 1974. The 1974 Abortion Act had liberalised the 1969 Abortion Act, which was passed contentiously with 32 ayes, 10 nays and one abstention.

An important reason for legalising abortion in 1969 was the widespread incidence of dangerous backstreet abortions. That, however, cannot in itself justify legalising abortion because a criminal activity should not be legally handed over to a dignified profession that does a better job. Whether abortion should be allowed must be determined by other factors.

If so, we must now ask whether the reasons adduced for the laws in 1969 and 1974 remain valid today. The various social goods cited by then-health minister Chua Sian Chin bear some re-examination.

First, the quality of life for children would be improved if they were wanted, he said. Mr Chua noted that this was good for society as 'it is mainly from the ranks of the unwanted children, the illegitimate and broken homes where most of the delinquents, the criminals and the antisocial elements are derived. Our society in Singapore cannot afford to breed such people'.

In contrast, parliamentarian Ng Kah Ting called the logic of the 'every child a wanted child' slogan 'crazy'. It appeared to be based on the right of the child to be wanted, yet abortion deprived the child of the right to live altogether.

Indeed, some have argued that rights of such babies are better protected by counselling women to welcome the pregnancy. Another option would be to establish programmes that help women financially and emotionally to put them up for adoption, which would also help couples unable to conceive.

The second social good Mr Chua cited was the improvement in the net quality of the population if the mentally and physically handicapped may be aborted.

Mr Ng rejected such eugenics reasoning for abortion as it would lead to a slippery slope on which it would be equally justifiable to also legislate to destroy deformed or mentally defective babies, the incurably ill, the old or the economically worthless.

Mr Chua dismissed Mr Ng's concern by saying that 'no community anywhere in the present world, irrespective of its political character, has ever thought of permitting the killing of human beings, as it is generally understood, be they sick, old, infirm, paralysed or totally decrepit'.

Yet, today, Princeton University philosopher Peter Singer can remain a highly regarded academic even though he has propounded the view that severely handicapped newborns may be justifiably killed. This suggests that we need to reconsider whether the slippery slope argument is indeed as far-fetched today as it sounded then.

The third social good was population control for the sake of economic advancement. Mr Chua feared that the population would hit four million by 2010. Ironically, in 2008, Singapore's concern is quite the opposite. We want more babies, so his concern is quite obsolete.

Unlike debates in the West, little was said about the right of women to control their own bodies in our parliamentary debates then. Still, it seemed to have been thought that we could let those who wish to abort choose to do so, and those opposed to abortion could simply not undergo abortion. This argument is unacceptable if the unborn was worthy of protection.

By way of analogy, consider how the slavery laws of South Carolina in 1859, which compelled no white man to own slaves, would still be unacceptable today. While this argument has not yet prevailed in the West to overturn its abortion laws, the changing nature of the abortion debate suggests our laws merit revisiting.

The Select Committee in 1969 did not think it fit to debate whether the foetus had a right to life or whether it had any human rights. Mr Chua suggested the question was how to treat an unwanted pregnancy.

As there is consensus that an innocent life cannot be taken, allowing abortion without restriction as to reason assumes that the unborn is not a life. This means that the law has necessarily taken a stand that life does not begin at conception.

But if the metaphysical question of when life begins is truly unsettled, it would be counter-intuitive not to err on the side of preserving life and disallow abortion. As one critic has noted, if a hunter senses movement behind a bush and shoots at it without making sure it was not caused by a human being, he would be considered highly irresponsible.

Although Mr Ng cited various medical codes and conferences for the view that life began at conception, Mr Chua dismissed them as being religiously motivated. Mr Chua suggested that the considerations governing the regulation of abortion ought to be medical only - the viability of the foetus and the danger of the procedure to the mother.

Medical technologies have advanced since that babies born way much earlier than full term are now viable in the best centres. There have also been more long-term studies that show abortion is not free from adverse effects, psychological and physical, on women. There are also studies that correlate abortion with *** cancer though causality has not been established apodictically. Thus it would be prudent to revisit the medical grounds Mr Chua had cited.

Nearly four decades on from the legalisation of abortion, our changing social goals in relation to fertility and demographics, as well as the advances in medical knowledge, suggest that the reasons which undergirded the law back then may no longer be valid.

It is high time that Parliament reviewed the law.

The writer teaches law at the National University of Singapore. The views expressed are her own. var newwindow; function poptastic(url) { newwindow=window.open(url,'name','height=530,width=800'); if (window.focus) {newwindow.focus()} }

I'm not thinking these zero-sum arguments are going to find much support in Parliment. 

Tubalcain:

chaz345:

Tubalcain:

chaz345:

Tubalcain:

chaz345:

Tubalcain:

chaz345:

Am I the only one who finds Tubal/Lynn/whoever's referring to another poster as a demon or as Satan to be more than a little over the top?

Maybe even more out of touch with reality than  calling FoTF one of the most evil organizations ever conceived.

You don't know what irony is, right?

 

What statements have I made,  stated as fact like you so often  do,  that are similarly out of touch with reality?

This silly business of deciding I'm this other person sure suffices, but your buddy TDH has swallowed itm which doesn't say much about her.  Go ahead and think what you want to think.  Whether I'm me or some 3-eyed alien from the Planet Bismoll you still can't debate me or anyone else.

There is a HUGE difference between stating my opinion that you are someone else, clearly qualified as my opinion and accompanied by my reasons for my belief, and what you do which is simply state your opinion as fact and provide less than nothing about what you base that opinion on.

Which doesn't bother you a bit when your fellow travellers do it.

Two things.

First, when was the last time you asked someone you agreed with for a source?

And secondly, no one else here comes anywhere near you in terms of stating their opinion as fact.

Haha....I'm not the one saying "The Bible says that..." which is always an expression of opinion.  You just object because you're bested so often.  At least I argue;  all you do here is whine.

You don't argue, you state opinion as fact and then, when asked for a source, cite more opinion if you even bother to respond at all. 

In order to best someone in an argument or debate one has to make a point and support it with objective facts or tear down the other person's point with objective facts. Something that you have not even tried to do in your time here. Like I said, I have a very hard time believing someone who seems so adverse to using objective facts to prove a point is a lawyer.

---

Chaz345

This "lawyer" would , if defending an alleged murderer, say, "judge, of course those witnesses say they saw him commit the crime, they are obviously pro-gun extremists who would have rather meted out the justice themselves much like...(then added the name and a historic anecdote about a famous vigilaante, either a real one or one from  a piece of classic literature).
When asked for any objective proof of innocence the indignant reaction would be that the prosecution are extremists and have not put forth any evidence, while looking across a table filled with exhibits A-Z.

Tubal, really, if you see somehow that you have "bested" anyone in any of these debates, then you have generated an artificial reality and chosen to live in it.

---

Cool Im banned TOO.
Enjoy it Holten and Company!

Also, if you believe that anything and everything stated in the Bible is an opinion.....why do you bother with it at all? If, buried in scripture, there exists no fundamnetal truth, what kind of faith guides you? From where does you moral compass flow? How do you make choices in day to day life?
Are there moral absolutes in your world? If not, how does that function. If so, what are they and where do you get them?
Or is it that everything is an opinion, subject to whims of change if a stronger opinion comes along.

---

Cool Im banned TOO.
Enjoy it Holten and Company!

chaz345:

Tubalcain:

chaz345:

Tubalcain:

chaz345:

Tubalcain:

chaz345:

Tubalcain:

chaz345:

Am I the only one who finds Tubal/Lynn/whoever's referring to another poster as a demon or as Satan to be more than a little over the top?

Maybe even more out of touch with reality than  calling FoTF one of the most evil organizations ever conceived.

You don't know what irony is, right?

 

What statements have I made,  stated as fact like you so often  do,  that are similarly out of touch with reality?

This silly business of deciding I'm this other person sure suffices, but your buddy TDH has swallowed itm which doesn't say much about her.  Go ahead and think what you want to think.  Whether I'm me or some 3-eyed alien from the Planet Bismoll you still can't debate me or anyone else.

There is a HUGE difference between stating my opinion that you are someone else, clearly qualified as my opinion and accompanied by my reasons for my belief, and what you do which is simply state your opinion as fact and provide less than nothing about what you base that opinion on.

Which doesn't bother you a bit when your fellow travellers do it.

Two things.

First, when was the last time you asked someone you agreed with for a source?

And secondly, no one else here comes anywhere near you in terms of stating their opinion as fact.

Haha....I'm not the one saying "The Bible says that..." which is always an expression of opinion.  You just object because you're bested so often.  At least I argue;  all you do here is whine.

You don't argue, you state opinion as fact and then, when asked for a source, cite more opinion if you even bother to respond at all. 

In order to best someone in an argument or debate one has to make a point and support it with objective facts or tear down the other person's point with objective facts. Something that you have not even tried to do in your time here. Like I said, I have a very hard time believing someone who seems so adverse to using objective facts to prove a point is a lawyer.

What you believe about me is not my concern.  That I have continued to show the invalidity of your specious arguments is.

divorce in church:

This "lawyer" would , if defending an alleged murderer, say, "judge, of course those witnesses say they saw him commit the crime, they are obviously pro-gun extremists who would have rather meted out the justice themselves much like...(then added the name and a historic anecdote about a famous vigilaante, either a real one or one from  a piece of classic literature).
When asked for any objective proof of innocence the indignant reaction would be that the prosecution are extremists and have not put forth any evidence, while looking across a table filled with exhibits A-Z.

Tubal, really, if you see somehow that you have "bested" anyone in any of these debates, then you have generated an artificial reality and chosen to live in it.

The burden of proof is on the prosecution.  In your case, your side has miserably failed to present one.

divorce in church:

Also, if you believe that anything and everything stated in the Bible is an opinion.....why do you bother with it at all? If, buried in scripture, there exists no fundamnetal truth, what kind of faith guides you? From where does you moral compass flow? How do you make choices in day to day life?
Are there moral absolutes in your world? If not, how does that function. If so, what are they and where do you get them?
Or is it that everything is an opinion, subject to whims of change if a stronger opinion comes along.

Of course I never said anything of this sort. 

It appears you are confusing fundamentalism with Christianity.

 

Tubalcain:

divorce in church:

Also, if you believe that anything and everything stated in the Bible is an opinion.....why do you bother with it at all? If, buried in scripture, there exists no fundamnetal truth, what kind of faith guides you? From where does you moral compass flow? How do you make choices in day to day life?
Are there moral absolutes in your world? If not, how does that function. If so, what are they and where do you get them?
Or is it that everything is an opinion, subject to whims of change if a stronger opinion comes along.

Of course I never said anything of this sort. 

It appears you are confusing fundamentalism with Christianity.

 

Im not confusing anything. I am not surprised that you must bring yet another disparaging term....fundamnetalism....and make that the crux of another point that lacks anything than your own assertion.
Casting about with terms like that....fundamentalism...all that does is call upon the same resource book that atheists and those who simply oppose church things. There is in my opinion nothing wrong with "fundamentalism". Your whole stance assumes that the Bible is flawed and to be taken with a grain of salt...that somehow YOUR intellect is a needed ingredient. That scares me....not that its YOU...but that its ANYONE. I do NOT want you being my guru....KWIM?

This whole fundamnetalism vs Christian thing was something I made use of when I was fleeing God. It created enough cover for me to feel good about myself and somehow appealed enough to my inteelect that I was OK with not believing....even feeling disdainful towards believers.
I don't know where you stand...nor would I dare to judge that....but these things you call on to make your point are pretty tired and cliche.....nothing new there at all, and the beauty of the God of the Bible.....He indeed can take the heat of your doubts and still love you the same.

---

Cool Im banned TOO.
Enjoy it Holten and Company!