tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post5880602496682553026..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Five Big Rocks (part two)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-61149717500631605792007-11-08T10:09:00.000-05:002007-11-08T10:09:00.000-05:00Hats off to both of you, then. For a religion bas...Hats off to both of you, then. For a religion based on revelation, this is an absolute zinger!Karl Bettshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01050597312982483052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-48341682936832319132007-10-31T10:53:00.000-04:002007-10-31T10:53:00.000-04:00Karl:Remember that my comments are merely addition...Karl:<BR/>Remember that my comments are merely additions to the main 'rock,' which is Joseph's, and deals with <I>his</I> personal experiences. Sadly, I have neither the academic credentials nor even the 'life credetnials' -- as someone like Joesph would have -- to write a book that anyone would either publish or by, even imagining I could do the editing necessary to bring it to professional standards. I am combining the four sections into an article which may appear elsewhere, I'll let you know if it does.<BR/><BR/>(I'll admit that, were I to be in a position to write a book or could I convince myself that such a study could -- or should, since I agree with the necessity of 'credentials' -- get published, this is one of the two topics I'd love to do one on. The other is the Zoroastrian influence on Christianity.)<BR/><BR/>But again, it's Joseph who created the whole 'five rocks' structure, I just chipped some pebbles off the rock and shaped them as bullets. But thank you for the kind words.Prup (aka Jim Benton)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-27843764494520825742007-10-25T22:39:00.000-04:002007-10-25T22:39:00.000-04:00prup I hope this affirmation does not get lost in ...prup I hope this affirmation does not get lost in the nearly 50 responses, but I really, deeply appreciate the Communication rock. You summarize years and years of struggle that I have as a Christian pastor and student of philosophical theology and philosophical problems as they relate to religion.<BR/><BR/>A very substantial concern and objection -- probably the strongest of the 5 in my opinion. Perhaps you can write a book on this and the related issues of biblical authority.<BR/><BR/>Very well done!<BR/><BR/>--KarlKarl Bettshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01050597312982483052noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-8173093201941423672007-10-21T17:31:00.000-04:002007-10-21T17:31:00.000-04:00Prup,I was just responding to the questions you ha...Prup,<BR/><BR/>I was just responding to the questions you had posted but I guess you'd rather hear from someone other then me. Good luck with finding answers.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13029527163229375153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-9821306896287548122007-10-21T10:46:00.000-04:002007-10-21T10:46:00.000-04:00As I said above, I probably won't have a chance to...As I said above, I probably won't have a chance to most anything substantial on this until Wednesday at the earliest. See you all then.Prup (aka Jim Benton)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-65546834724349855752007-10-21T10:45:00.000-04:002007-10-21T10:45:00.000-04:00But lets get to the important part -- and I specif...But lets get to the important part -- and I specifically ask anyone commenting -- after the Jason problem -- to at least read over the earlier 'bullets' above so they can at least understand the overall points I am making.<BR/><BR/>Bullet #4: The problem of the resurrection.<BR/><BR/>Jesus, according to almost all Christians, came to Earth with a message for all mankind. (They may believe there were other purposes as well, but there was certainly a message -- even though they don't agree what it was.) And the resurrection was the 'clincher' to prove that message was from God, the one irrefutable proof. Think about how wonderfully he used this proof to get his message out.<BR/><BR/>Think about that scene in the Sanhedrin. It's true that the Sanhedrin, despite the Gospel, wasn't involved in Jesus' death, but it was the central body in all Judaism, and certainly they must have been aware of Jesus' preaching and crucifixion. <BR/><BR/>How wonderful it was when Jesus appeared in front of that meeting and showed his resurrected body. How incredible it must have been, seeing all these great thinkers and leaders bowing down to him, and then going out to spread his message to all Judaism. Oh, some did not believe them, but so many did that almost all the Jews throughout Jerusalem and then the world came over, en masse, to Christianity, with only a minor fragment holding out and refusing to believe.<BR/><BR/>What a wonderful idea to appear there. Only, somehow, Jesus never had the idea to make such an appearance.<BR/><BR/>But there was the appearance before Herod, who might, in fact, actually have been involved in Jesus' death. He wasn't the ruler his father had been, but he was still a powerful leader, and he was already shown -- according to the Gospels -- to accept the possibility of a resurrection. So when Jesus stood before him, showing him that death could not prevent the message from getting out, his temporal power and connection with Rome lent the entire weight of the monarchy to the support of Christianity.<BR/><BR/>Or it would have, had Jesus thought to appear before him, but -- oops -- he somehow didn't do that either.<BR/><BR/>But maybe he'd given up on the Jews, and realized the true place for his message was to Rome and the gentiles of the Empire. Paul thought so -- despite the fact that Jesus specifically ordered his apostles not to preach to the gentiles or Samaritans, yet another of those 'corrections' Paul made.<BR/><BR/>So picture the look on Pilate's face when Jesus walked into his chamber. (If there is any truth at all to the crucifixion story, it must be that Pilate signed the order for it to be done.) Pilate, that weak, corrupt, credulous man, how shocked he was when Jesus appeared before him. "I'm baaack!" His centurions had told him that Jesus was dead and buried, but here he was, still showing the wounds he had received, the whole in his side, the marks of the nails.<BR/><BR/>Picture how Pilate fell prostrate before him in terror. Picture how eagerly he ccepted Jesus' forgiveness, how glad he was to follow Jesus' command: "Gather the centurions who witnessed my death, come with them and me to Rome, and testify to the Emperor what you have seen and done. Tell him that my Father is the True God."<BR/><BR/>What a wonderful idea. Even if the emperor had been dubious -- and that is unlikely if the date is accurate and Tiberias was still alive -- the roman nobility would have heard the story. No need to wait 30 years for Paul to get there, almost 300 years for Constantine's conversion. The appearance was the thing that immediately made Christianity a major religion throughout the Empire, led to the conquering of it 'through the cross.'<BR/><BR/>Throughout the 'known world' the banner of Christianity would have been carried by the Roman soldiers, convinced by the Emperor's story of his own Prefect's testimony, his own sight of the crucified and resurrected Jesus.<BR/><BR/>Another wonderful opportunity to spread the message to the world.<BR/><BR/>Another missed opportunity.<BR/><BR/>But, of course, Jesus wasn't interested in rulers and kings and emperors. He wanted to speak to the common people, to spread his word through their witness and testimony. He didn't want to appear before the emperor -- tough he changed his mind on that one too, if you accept Constantine's vision.<BR/><BR/>So he just appeared in the central square of Jerusalem, in the temple -- still standing, it was thirty years before it would be destroyed -- and spoke to the people, telling them the wondrous news of the Gospel. And how they listened, seeing him there, radiant, yet still with the mortal wounds showing on his body.<BR/><BR/>There were people from all the lands -- Jeruslaem was the center of Jewry, but Jews had spread throughout the Empire. All of them went back to spread the word. Even the man 'from the highest of priestly ranks' who was to father Josephus, that greatest Jewish historian, might have been there, and could have told his son the story, so that it would have been written down.<BR/><BR/>If only Jesus had gotten the idea to make such an appearance.<BR/><BR/>This is why the resurrection is such a problem. Not because it is 'miraculous.' (I don't accept miracles, but believers do, and saying it was 'miraculous' is an argument, in their minds, in its favor.) But because, if it happened, jesus must have been so totally cluelessly, unthinkingly <B><I>dumb</I></B> to have missed every single opportunity to use this great miracle to spread the message he supposedly had.<BR/><BR/>(Either that, or the whole thing was an invention based on a brief, misunderstood, glimpse -- in the early morning -- by Peter, of someone who looked like Jesus. That one scene -- as Guignebert argues -- could have been the entire inspiration for the myth that only later was added to with stories of the empty tomb and the meetings behind closed doors with the disciples.)<BR/><BR/>Either way, that bullet is the fatal one.Prup (aka Jim Benton)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-41280626159999526282007-10-21T09:51:00.000-04:002007-10-21T09:51:00.000-04:00Oh, and I, unfortunately, hadn't read this particu...Oh, and I, unfortunately, hadn't read this particular work of Ehrman -- a lapse I hope to correct soon.<BR/><BR/>His work probably contains more sense on the g8iven topic than anyone else writing on it, and I would strongly suggest that you read some of what he has written, particularly this and LOST CHRISTIANITIES. Might open your eyes if they are, in fact, openable.Prup (aka Jim Benton)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-26833529280490589892007-10-21T09:18:00.000-04:002007-10-21T09:18:00.000-04:00Jason:First, Shygetz' comments to you are much wha...Jason:<BR/>First, Shygetz' comments to you are much what I would say, only shorter and more direct.<BR/><BR/>Second, I would be more willing to respond to you if you had shown you read the original comments that my questions were based on -- the 'three bullets' I've posted so far. Particularly, your response to point A shows you do not understand what I mean by my question about Paul.<BR/><BR/>Finally, because of a visit from my wife's sister, who she hasn't seen in six years, my time will be very limited until Wednesday. I'm going to try and get my 'fourth bullet' up after I check the recent comments in other threads, but can't do much mor until then. In the meanwhile, I hope you will respond to Shygetz' comments. He at least gets what I am trying to say, enough so that if you ignore them, I'll merely copy them as my own.Prup (aka Jim Benton)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-73240305264046593112007-10-20T23:37:00.000-04:002007-10-20T23:37:00.000-04:00jason, this is a public forum. If you want to hol...jason, this is a public forum. If you want to hold a private conversation with prup, you are welcome to arrange to do so; I know of several people who have held fruitful private e-mail conversations that began in the public comments on this blog. <BR/><BR/>However, if you post an comment on this blog, it is generally considered to be open to all takers unless specifically set up otherwise by the blog administrators. Perhaps John would be willing to setting up a thread private to you and prup; you should ask him if that's what you are interested in. <BR/><BR/>This is not that thread. If you wish to take part in public discussion on a public thread, you should be prepared to answer all questioners. You would surely expect the same from our side of the table--if I only allowed Dan Marvin to reply to my ideas, you would rightly call foul (and perhaps more than just "foul").<BR/><BR/>I also noticed that you did not object when John commented; only when I did. If you harbor a personal animosity toward me, that's really unfortunate. However, I will not refrain from commenting on the topics here that interest me, and neither should anyone else (although you are, of course, free to ignore me).Shygetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12587529149916263563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-69664827491748993362007-10-20T22:15:00.000-04:002007-10-20T22:15:00.000-04:00Shy,I'm prepared to respond to Prup's comments and...Shy,<BR/><BR/>I'm prepared to respond to Prup's comments and rebuttals alone. Thanks for your input.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13029527163229375153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-48565626810316821732007-10-20T17:43:00.000-04:002007-10-20T17:43:00.000-04:00My comment was entirely on topic. Ehrman clearly ...My comment was entirely on topic. Ehrman clearly points out in a very influential and well-received book that the most ancient manuscripts we have of the Bible differ in significant ways, and that the methods we have for trying to determine the words of the original manuscript are imperfect at best. He points out specific instances when manuscripts were both intentionally and unintentionally mistranscribed, and demonstrates how the originality of several theologically important passages are seriously in doubt. This speaks directly to your reply to john loftus, where you affirm your assertion that we have the words of Jesus. Scholars who actually do research in the field strongly disagree. This also responds directly to your answer to prup's point "C", where you asked what parts of the message were corrupted, and is therefore eminently on-topic. Scholars insist that we do not know what the original manuscripts said, much less what they meant in the vernacular of the time. If you wish to disagree with them in an intelligent fashion, I would expect to see equal rigor applied as the people who do this for a living used.Shygetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12587529149916263563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-38054519905392766212007-10-20T00:04:00.000-04:002007-10-20T00:04:00.000-04:00Shy,I'm answering the questions Prup put out there...Shy,<BR/><BR/>I'm answering the questions Prup put out there. If you have a problem with something I've said or want to talk about something else, start a new post elsewhere to make it easier for everyone to stay on topic.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13029527163229375153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-448236549516864552007-10-19T22:55:00.000-04:002007-10-19T22:55:00.000-04:00jason: Surely you've read "Misquoting Jesus". Do...jason: Surely you've read "Misquoting Jesus". Do you claim Ehrman (and many other scholars) lied?Shygetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12587529149916263563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-16647404906559228372007-10-19T10:07:00.000-04:002007-10-19T10:07:00.000-04:00John,I can and I did.John,<BR/><BR/>I can and I did.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13029527163229375153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-23711717026460199062007-10-19T09:35:00.000-04:002007-10-19T09:35:00.000-04:00Jason, you can't just say we have the words of Jes...Jason, you can't just say we have the words of Jesus and so forth. <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/09/biblical-scholarship-and-lords-prayer.html" REL="nofollow">We don't</A>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-12497868366601272192007-10-19T09:26:00.000-04:002007-10-19T09:26:00.000-04:00A. There was nothing wrong with Jesus' communicati...A. There was nothing wrong with Jesus' communication methods. The problem was with the people listening to him (a la the Jews and Pharisees who wanted to kill first, ask questions later.) Paul encountered the same problems during his ministry (Acts 7:51-57, 13:45, 28:27). People refusing to listen to the message isn't anything new - God told Adam & Eve not to eat the fruit, they did it anyway. God told the Israelites not to worship idols but they did it nonetheless. It's been going on since the beginning of time.<BR/><BR/>B. Good question but it's trivial. Christians believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. The words of Moses, the words of John the Baptist and the words of Luke all come from the same source. The author is secondary to the message. <BR/><BR/>C. What part of the message has been corrupted?Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13029527163229375153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-78554850410969773632007-10-17T12:52:00.000-04:002007-10-17T12:52:00.000-04:00C'mon guys, won't anyone even try to answer the fi...C'mon guys, won't anyone even <B>try</B> to answer the first three challenges, before I put up the fourth?<BR/><BR/>I'll eliminate the build and put them in the form of simple questions.<BR/><BR/>A: Why was Jesus such a poor communicator that he needed Paul to reinterpret his message?<BR/><BR/>B: Why didn't Jesus write his own book to convey what he had to say?<BR/><BR/>C: Why didn't, in some way, God or Jesus 'give man the gift' of printing, to ensure the words of the message would be transmitted uncorrupted.<BR/><BR/>I'd really like to see <I>someone</I> try and deal with these before I 'fire' the 'fourth bullet.'Prup (aka Jim Benton)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-19595247899620117972007-10-16T11:57:00.000-04:002007-10-16T11:57:00.000-04:00Bullet #3: The Problem of the Simple SolutionTo sh...Bullet #3: The Problem of the Simple Solution<BR/><BR/>To show this bullet, I'd like you all to use your imagination and journey with me back in time. (This is meant to be an impressionistic description. I may have gotten some details wrong, but I hope you'll only dispute me if they are relevant to the conclusion.)<BR/><BR/>Come with me to the Tenth Century, to a small abbey and imagine yourself as a monk, working in the Scriptorium, making copies of the precious manuscripts, most especially those of the Bible.<BR/><BR/>It's cold, first of all. No 'central heating' and the Abbott doesn't want to take the chance of a large fire in the room, for fear of burning up the precious contents.<BR/><BR/>It's dark too, lit only by candles, carefully shaded for further protection. There's no window letting in sunlight, not for many years to come.<BR/><BR/>You're hungry. You know some monasteries have -- comparatively -- ample diets. Some even supply meat twice a week. But your abbot is a pious man, shunning such corrupting luxuries. Besides, it is a fast day today, and you haven't eaten yet, even though you've been up since 3:00 AM.<BR/><BR/>Its true you are so used to the stench of unwashed bodies that you don't notice it, and you do wash your hands before touching the precious words.<BR/><BR/>You settle in on your backless, unpadded bench. The pains in your back and your rear, you have long since 'offered up to God,' a minor price to pay to assure yet another copy of his priceless words - or the words of the wise Fathers of the Church that interpreted them -- exist in the world.<BR/><BR/>And so you set to work. And you groan as you see the book you must copy. Yes, it is precious because of its words, and also because it had been, itself, copied by the Blessed Anselm, the companion of the Abbey's founder who the Abbey was already referring to as a Saint. Sadly, his renown was more for his piety than for his penmanship, and the visions he was known for frequently came here in the Scriptorium. Surely it was understood that they were a distraction, but the result, from your point of view was that he occasionally dropped lines from his work.<BR/><BR/>At least you were luckier than your fellow Monk, Brother Theodore, who had been put to work correcting Brother Rollo’s manuscripts. Rollo -- you’d known him briefly before he had been requested to leave -- had been the younger son of a local Lord, and had been accepted into the Abbey as a favor to his father. Rollo had not considered it a favor, and he had particularly hated his work here, so much so that he had needed fortification -- by use of the Abbey’s wine cellar -- before he set to work, and, it was said, even during his time at work. The wine did not affect his penmanship or his considerable learning, it must be said. But it added to his ‘playfulness.’ He would deliberately miscopy words, putting heretical thoughts in the mouths of the Fathers. He even, for which, you know, his soul would pay a fearsome price, tampered with God’s Word itself. And so subtly that there had been many manuscripts sent on with his ‘corrections’ before he went too far and deliberately left the ‘not’ from several of the Commandments. But now it had taken years to check the books he had worked on, to recopy them and burn the pages he had so amended.<BR/><BR/>Before you began, you walked to Brother John, the aged, who had spent many years at the work you were about to do. It had cost him much of his sight, but not his memory, and he had come up with an ingenious method of guiding his hand as he formed the letters and words of the Prophets without the ability or need to consult the manuscript he was ‘copying.’<BR/><BR/>You pick up your goose feather -- once again marveling at God’s ingenuity in using such a common animal to provide the tool for preserving His words, and begin the task. Over and over you dip it, read a few words from the original, and inscribe them on a virgin surface. Then again, dip, read, write, creating yet one more copy of the Word of God for a new Church to own. Someday, you dream, every city, every town might have its own complete copy of the Holy Book, that even the more pious of the rich might be able to own one. And you go on, dip, read, write, even being able to complete a whole sentence with one quill-full of ink.<BR/><BR/>AND THUS WERE THE WORDS OF GOD, OF THE PROPHETS, OF THE CHURCH FATHERS AND THE PHILOSOPHERS PRESERVED FOR FIFTEEN HUNDRED YEARS.<BR/><BR/>Is it any wonder that every manuscript we have of the Bible differs from another in small or serious ways? That books about the ideas of Christianity were lost forever because there were such few copies? That even the works of Aristotle -- so important to later Christian philosophy -- disappeared from the consciousness of the West for hundreds of years, until they were retransmitted to Christendom by the scholars of the High Muslim Empire?<BR/><BR/>It didn’t have to be this way. True, Gutenberg’s invention required many discoveries before it was possible, but the used of carved wooden blocks for printing did not. (In fact, the Chinese were using it -- though for pictures, not words -- a hundred years after the Bible was complete.) The Israelites, the Greeks and Romans, any of them could have pioneered the technique. The lack was imagination, not means.<BR/><BR/>The God of the Old Testament spends time describing the building of the Ark. Later the minute details of the Temple are put down. How easy for Jesus, who was a worker in wood, to describe, briefly, the technique of preserving his own words, so that his message, in its original form, would have been spread to so many hearers, so much more accurately.<BR/><BR/>(And think, for a minute, how much respect he and Christians, would have gained throughout the Empire had they given this great gift to man. Not just a preacher, not just a teacher, but Jesus would have been esteemed as well as an inventor. How much more convincing would his other words have been if they were preserved through this brilliance.)<BR/><BR/>But no, he refrained from giving man this gift. He knew, supposedly, as ‘Son of God,’ what would happen to his message, how it would be argued over, how it would proceed so slowly to be transmitted. He apparently didn’t care enough to make sure, in this small and great way, that it would be heard. And if he was merely an ‘inspired prophet’ conveying God’s word, teaching mankind a lesson through his death, why didn’t the Designer of the Ark, the Architect of the Temple, be the inventor of printing?<BR/><BR/>(Or again, he didn’t give this idea because he didn’t know of it. That he was no more knowledgeable than his contemporaries, that his idea of God was his own and not God’s. But again, that is another bullet.)Prup (aka Jim Benton)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-53980217580490052272007-10-16T02:34:00.000-04:002007-10-16T02:34:00.000-04:00Joseph- when I said that "Plan 9 from Outer Space"...Joseph- when I said that "Plan 9 from Outer Space" was the worst film of all time, I meant that in the best possible way.<BR/><BR/>And I know exactly what you mean about the charm of sincerity. Heck, I'm even a sucker for stuff like <A HREF="http://u2download.com/watch-video-Johnny%20Cymbal%20-%20Mr.%20Bass%20Man-idERXwuOnYkQA.htm" REL="nofollow">"Mister Bass Man"</A>, by Johnny Cymbal, which wouldn't stand a chance of becoming popular today because it's cute and not cool.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-82863154117351940332007-10-14T11:27:00.000-04:002007-10-14T11:27:00.000-04:00MMM: I hope you will not feel you are 'rejected h...MMM: I hope you will not feel you are 'rejected here.' We disagree with you, certainly, and some of us -- I am particularly guilty of this at times -- tend to respond harshly to some types of comments. (But remember, I have 'responded harshly' to people on both sides of the question, which is one reason I'm no longer a member of the group, just a commenter.)<BR/>You are one of several Christians who we may disagree with, but whose presence is welcomed, along with Sandalstraps, Jennifer, richdurrant, and others. We may never share your view of the world, nor may you ever share ours, but we want you to challenge us, to question us.<BR/><BR/>(After all, there are many atheist blogs out there whose purpose is just 'rallying the troops' and talking with each other. The difference between them and DC is the presence among the regular commenters of welcomed opponents like you and the others I've mentioned -- I'd include Jason as well, and Jim Jordan, and the others I've forgotten.<BR/><BR/>The only people who are 'rejected here' are the trolls and personal insulters like the multi-named one.<BR/><BR/>Please stick around.Prup (aka Jim Benton)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08376467128665482055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-90890401076477305992007-10-14T08:57:00.000-04:002007-10-14T08:57:00.000-04:00Andrew off topic posts are not allowed. You know t...Andrew off topic posts are not allowed. You know that. And I deny your accusations.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-79858776783732448312007-10-14T08:53:00.000-04:002007-10-14T08:53:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Emanuel Goldsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02653303041185240250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-80319447224789997892007-10-14T00:15:00.000-04:002007-10-14T00:15:00.000-04:00Hi, MMM. I appreciate you clarifying your intenti...Hi, MMM. I appreciate you clarifying your intentions. It's so hard to put words into the context of the human being writing them...and so easy to read attitudes and motivations into words that don't belong! I'm prone to do that as much as the next person. I appreciate you trying to keep us on our toes!<BR/>....and yes, I am a sweetie-pie :)Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07058424176773515878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-41045556131003540462007-10-14T00:11:00.000-04:002007-10-14T00:11:00.000-04:00zilch, I happen to LOVE Plan 9 and all of Ed Wood'...zilch, I happen to LOVE Plan 9 and all of Ed Wood's movies! Yeah, my wife thinks I have eccentric taste in movies--and I do. There is a sincerity about them which I find charming.Billhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07058424176773515878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-41483153068343524652007-10-13T13:31:00.000-04:002007-10-13T13:31:00.000-04:00Joseph, I am growing more and more to consider you...Joseph, I am growing more and more to consider you a sweetie pie (no sarcasm intended there). I am glad to hear you say that you are not superior to anyone else but I hope you also know that you are not inferior either! As a believer, I view you as one who is well loved by God, but also as one who isn't exactly seeing and loving Him in return. <BR/><BR/>I'm glad that you have challenged me about your arguments but they are not weak - on the cntrary, they are understandable and I held them in my heart at one time myself. I understand them and they are powerful insights. I just don't let them govern my life anymore. And BTW, it isn't a crime to question God's Way - His Way is antagonistic to the way of the world. I've come to a point where I quit justifying myself and promote God's Way instead. So, Joseph, I have to say that I am softening my heart towards you even though you and I will never be on the same page as far as nonbelief is concerned. I know I am rejected here, which saddens me a lot because I really have grown to like you guys. <BR/><BR/>Take care! The best to you, MMMManifesting Mini Me (MMM)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08250513504254425163noreply@blogger.com