flimsy moral standards? Lets see here.
If I were to shoot your wife, would you have a problem with that?
-michael martin
Connect with other Pastafarians
Propaganda Buttons
Add these buttons to your site:
RSS Feeds
Support the Cause
The Church is funded entirely by your purchases of FSM merchandise. Thank you for your support.
Purchase the Gospel
An elaborate spoof on Intelligent Design, The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is neither too elaborate nor too spoofy to succeed in nailing the fallacies of ID. It's even wackier than Jonathan Swift's suggestion that the Irish eat their children as a way to keep them from being a burden, and it may offend just as many people, but Henderson, described elsewhere as a 25-year-old "out-of-work physics major," puts satire to the same serious use that Swift did. Oh, yes, it is very funny. -- Scientific American
Nic, fine fine .I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. You appearently look at the world from a much different angle then I, and I know enough to know there’s always more to know. You have some good points, and you do know how to get the party started, I’ll give you that!
Homo narrans,
No matter what the statistics say, and no matter what people do with the information they are taught, the fact of the matter is that abstinence is better than contraception at protecting against pregnancy and disease. You can’t argue with that. Sure, many people want to have sex with multiple partners and they do. They also raise their risk of these unfortunate consequences.
Jack Sparrow,
You wrotw, “Increasingly scientific evidence is showing that the way people behave is directly affected by mental illnesses and genetic deformities. ” - This assumes that there is some form of behavior that is Right.
@Nic:
.
“You wrote, “…It (Anthropological argument) hinges upon the premise that “If you can’t point to some other cause for X, then X must be caused by a deity.†- I’ll accept that. I will concede that there could be a “Hidden Answerâ€.
.
Or possibly no answer at all. That doesn’t negate the value of continuing to search, but one mustn’t get blinded by the self-centered assumption that there must exist a knowable answer.
.
“However, surely you can see that the atheistic answers fail miserably.”
.
As do the theistic ones. “God did it” is, in my opinion, intellectual abdication. It answers nothing and shuts down further inquiry. It’s not even a satisfying default case.
.
“So I recant. If there is a moral absolute it does not necessitate the existence of God.”
.
Thank you for that. Be aware that there’s a pretty massive “if” in your statement, though. Without establishing that premise, all conclusions based upon it (theistic or otherwise) are groundless.
.
” However, it does negate the atheistic presuppositions.”
.
Nope. Just your own strawman statement of “atheistic presuppositions.”
.
” And it is a rational reason for people to consider theistic options.”
.
That’s your opinion, to which you are welcome. Personally, I think it’s a cop-out.
Nic - if we all abstain from sex what will happen to the species?
.
Once again I haven’t read the posts. Yours are getting shorter and better btw.
.
How do we explain the HIV explosion in Africa - original sin?
.
Regarding my comment on the old Jehovah’s witnesses. The bible states twelve tribes of Israel. Or is that “up to interpretation”?
.
That is my problem - is the bible the absolute word of god or have people messed with it down the line? No matter what John said?
Jack Sparrow,
You wrote, “Increasingly scientific evidence is showing that the way people behave is directly affected by mental illnesses and genetic deformities.” This assumes that there is a form of behavior this absolutely right. According to natural selection genetic mutations happen all the time. Some are more beneficial for the organism and the environment it inhabits, others are not. However, being less sufficient does not constitute wrongness. I only point this out because it argues for the existence of an absolute moral standard, which I have gone to great lengths to prove.
/
You wrote, “…These people (people with genetic deformities, which cause them to behave badly), because of these evil things would be sent to hell. Does that seem fair and ethical to you?” – First, you should note that no one is sent to hell. Hell was not created for people. People choose to remain separated from God; that separation is hell/eternal death. Hell is a place, which is relatively experienced by each individual. Second, sin itself can be thought as a disease, this disease shows up in different ways, all of which are negative. Maybe it’s not quite as simple as people usually think, i.e. God doesn’t “want†to be around sinners. Maybe it is, as Millard Erickson wrote, that God is, as it were, allergic to sin. This is a difficult concept, but since when is reality simplistic.
/
You also wrote, “…Why would god be so interested in making a grand plan (a plan for sexuality and reproduction) like this?†– Why not?
/
You also wrote, “ …The idea of birth from two partners, love, attraction and etc fits in PERFECTLY with evolution. Which makes more sense to you?†– Personally, I have never seen a sufficient explanation for the existence of the male/female distinction.
Nic, all I am trying to point out is that christian beliefs are morally wrong. If behaviour is directly related to how your brain was made (which you have NO choice over) yet those people get punished anyway (eternal punishment that is) although they didn’t ever do something.
Either way you have to make the choice: The bible is incorrect or it is morally flawed
also you wrote “This assumes that there is some form of behavior that is Right.”
And what is the “Right” behaviour? there are many incredibly evil things one can do which definitly aren’t in the ten commandments. (i.e exploitation, oppression)
There simply is no “right” behaviour. Your behaviour is (sorry for repeating myself :P) directly dependant on well, the brain. If every person in the world is unique, they must all have different brains. Therefore they have different personality and behaviour. And if EVERYONES personality is different, there obviously is only one IDEAl personality to have EVER existed. Now who is that person?
The point is, behaviour, effort, and personality are completely respective to the person they belong.
If there was a person who’s brain let out endorphins whenever he hurt someone, making him happy, yet he wanted to be a nice person, so he tried as hard as he could to be nice, and so he ended up as a quite nice and behaved person.
Then there is a person who is born as, i don’t know, like awesome at everything, and really nice and behaved. He couldn’t be bothered to try being better, so his behaviour went down quite a lot. Yet he was still better than the ex-sadist. Yet who tried harder? who did the “right” thing in this?
Also, (you wrote your last post at the same time I did) You wrote “This assumes that there is a form of behavior this absolutely right. According to natural selection genetic mutations happen all the time. Some are more beneficial for the organism and the environment it inhabits, others are not. However, being less sufficient does not constitute wrongness. I only point this out because it argues for the existence of an absolute moral standard, which I have gone to great lengths to prove.”
Genetic Mutations do not prove absoloute moral standard, in fact precisely the opposite. Because of these genetic mutations, moral standard is changing all the time depending on the situation, and the creature it is applied to.
Geneticist claims to have found ‘God gene’ in humans
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20041114-111404-8087r.htm
Also, you wrote:
““…Why would god be so interested in making a grand plan (a plan for sexuality and reproduction) like this?†– Why not?”
Well, if there was no sexual reproduction, and god just made very good people whenever he felt like it, there would be no (sorry for bringing this up again) genetic deformities, evil people, athiests (:P), racists, brain problems, physical retardations, mental retardations, poverty, and canadians, because he would be monitoring every single person that was ever born.
Orthodox Agnostic,
You wrote, “God did it is, in my opinion, intellectual abdication. It answers nothing and shuts down further inquiry.†– No it doesn’t. It just helps you see where and how to look. It is a presuppostional lens, just like atheism.
/
You wrote that there may “possibly be no answer at all†for the existence of an absolute moral standard. – How? There is either an absolute moral standard or there is not. There has to be a reason for the existence or the non-existence of that standard. You are getting a little mystically absurd at this point.
/
I wrote. “If there is a moral absolute it does not necessitate the existence of God; however, it does negate the atheistic presuppositions.†You wrote, “Nope. Just your own straw man statement of atheistic presuppositions.†– So explain to me how an absolute moral standard could be inherent in a system of matter & energy + time & chance? PLEASE DO NOT explain how morals have evolved, because that implies that they will continue to evolve eternally, and thus are actually the antithesis of absolute. Plus I have read that story like a thousand times already.
It is hard to keep up with all these posts. Please be patient with me.
Sorry, we will write posts at your own time.
Ps. Could you please explain why fundies like you hate homosexuality? I still don’t understand that, and
Pss. Could you also bring some of your friends over to this site too? this is like the first debate we’ve had in ages! Its fun!
ps bobby, could you split this comment section in half from where nic entered? for people like me who have slow modems, this page is taking forever to load
k nic, times up, its been 30 minutes.
you wrote:
There is either an absolute moral standard or there is not. There has to be a reason for the existence or the non-existence of that standard. You are getting a little mystically absurd at this point.
Go onto wikipedia and look up “Moral Relativism”. it may explain.
/
You wrote:
“Orthodox Agnostic,
You wrote, “God did it is, in my opinion, intellectual abdication. It answers nothing and shuts down further inquiry.†– No it doesn’t. It just helps you see where and how to look. It is a presuppostional lens, just like atheism.”
I agree with you and I don’t agree with you. God did it is an answer, but after that you need to go on explain how god did, where he did it, why he did it, and when he did it in complete detail, otherwise its not an answer, and just abdication of thought.
oops sorry it was actually 10 minutes, but meh.
Nic - “It is hard to keep up with all these posts. Please be patient with me.”
.
Please do not worry. We will be waiting
You also wrote:
“Personally, I have never seen a sufficient explanation for the existence of the male/female distinction.”
The purpose for male/female distinction (evolutionwise) is so that each can fill in each role that is needed in a family. In pre-historic times (if you are a non young-earth creationist that is) the male was always the hunter and the worker and fighter while the woman stayed at home and looked after the children (more tedious than any of the mens jobs)prepared the food, gathered fruit and etc.
The purpose of sexual attraction between the two is that what one finds attractive in each other most often resembles these original tasks. e.g woman often find fit men more attractive than unfit ones: this means that the man will be better at fighting and hunting, won’t it. Men find women with large breasts attractive: this means that the woman can breast feed young children with more milk.
Alchemist,
You wrote, “If we all abstain from sex what will happen to the species?†We will cease to exist. I have never argued for total abstinence. God literally commands us to “be fruitful and multiply.†Further, just a quick glance through the Song of Solomon will indicate that God intends for us to enjoy sex. Sex is a gift from God. It’s a mystical union of the physical and spiritual. It’s awesome. I like it. I thank God for it!
/
You wrote, “How do we explain the HIV explosion in Africa - original sin?†– Yes and no. Yes in that all disease, suffering, and death are a direct result of the separation of our universe and God. However, specifically it is unprotected sex that has caused the HIV explosion in Africa.
/
You wrote, “Regarding my comment on the old Jehovah’s witnesses. The bible states twelve tribes of Israel. Or is that “up to interpretation�†– I am a little confused. If I remember correctly, the original context of your statement was that the JW’s refuse blood transfusions for a poor reason. So I’m not sure how that plays into your new question. The were 12 tribes of Israel. I do not know that any of those tribes can still be substantiated at this time. I think that the ten Northern Tribes disappeared after the Assyrians conquered Samaria in 722 B.C. The Southern Tribes Judah and Benjamin to my knowledge ceased to be documented after the destruction of the Temple and fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The one hundred forty-four thousand mentioned in the book of Revelation is a symbolic number, which the JW’s take literally.
/
You wrote, “Is the bible the absolute word of god or have people messed with it down the line?†– Yes I believe that in it’s original form, the Bible is the absolute word of God. Yes people have messed with it down through the years. However, not in the way Dan Brown and others would have you to believe. The problems with the copies of the extant manuscripts consist of spelling mistakes by scribes, and at the worst places where the scribe tried to clarify an ambiguous passage (None of the differences in the extant copies put in any major doctrine in doubt.). There have been no attempts to pervert the Word for political reasons. Other religions, Muslims, Mormons, etc. have changed their “Scripture†to be contemporary; however, the Bible has remained the same. Let me break the situation down for you: Consider the New Testament. We do not have the original documents written by the Apostles; however we have some very early copies. We take all of those copies and try to reconstruct the wording of the original documents. This process is called textual criticism. Have you ever read any of the great works (literature) from antiquity? Do you think they are still in their original state? Aristotle wrote his poetics around 343 B.C., and the earliest copy we have is dated A.D. 1100, nearly a 1,400 year gap, and only five manuscripts are in existence. Caesar composed his history of the Gallic Wars between 58 and 50 B.C., and it’s manuscript authority rests on ten copies dating one thousand years after his death. When it comes to the manuscript authority of the New Testament, the abundance of material is almost embracing in contrast. Over twenty thousand copies of the New Testament manuscripts are in existence today, the earliest of which is only twenty-five years older than the original. The Iliad has six hundred forty-three manuscripts and is second to the New Testament in manuscript authority. The earliest copy we have today of the Iliad was written about five hundred years after the original. Yet, no one doubts that we have what Homer actually wrote. Sir Frederic Kenyon, who was the director and principal librarian at the British Museum and second to none in authority in issuing statements about manuscripts, concludes: “The interval then between dates of the original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.†No one who knows anything about textual criticism and ancient manuscripts will disagree.
@ Everybody, OK, realize this might get ugly. I might use ugly words and sound like I am a really pissed off raving lunatic, I’m not. I mostly wanted to make a really, really big post! Like nic. I will use the smallest words possible, for a couple of reasons, it’s less confusing to the masses, I don’t want to baffle anyone with bullshit, and lastly, that’s just the way I roll. I am simply addressing (nics) overnight campaign of terror. I am not replying to him, I am giving you my interpretation,
Of what he stayed up all night to manufacture, by the way, I slept like a baby last night. Hope you all did too! And adding my two cents.
Also understand this is the Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster, we worship beer volcano’s and stripper factories, and pirates are a mainstay, keep this in mind at all times. It might seem important to you, it does me! ( For the most part, I’m the guy in the bracket thingies)
I’ll start with his first of many posts.
.
/Nic Dec 3rd, 2006 at 1:39 am
Penne,
I have apologized, retracted my statements, and admitted my potential to be wrong numerous times on this website./
(What he is saying here is, I’m not done with you poor souls yet, so I’ll need to get on your good side).
/
Nic Dec 3rd, 2006 at 1:42 am
Gill,
I can’t really say much to your post. First, because you are a theist and I am arguing that the atheistic presuppostions are insufficient. I could try to convince you that Jesus (the actual Jesus, not the traditional portrait of Jesus) is the God of all creation, but I will not force anything across your computer screen./
(He won’t force anything across the screen. You catch more flies with sugar then vinegar)./
I came to this website originally out of curiosity. I stayed because I saw it as a place to trade insights, learn new ideas, and even to strengthen my faith. I began my posts on this thread because I thought it was a running debate/idea forum on the essence of morality./ (He came to this site to save some lost heathen souls, that’s his station in life! More on that later)./
Second, you claim to be completely at peace with relative morality. Maybe you are. But this means that if your family were murdered you could not logically condemn the murderer. We have laws, and as so many have pointed out those laws would condemn the murderer because murder is not currently considered advantageous for society (Unless you count the radical Muslim desire to eradicate Israel and the West.). But considering the subjective nature of morality that you accept, the murderer is just doing what they feel is right. It’s just their misfortune that they were born in a time and place where murder is considered bad. Right?/ (He means to say he really hates Muslim’s, all Muslim’s! This is just his subjective way of sneaking them into this post)./
Please read the comment to One Eyed Jack that follows, as I believe it will more accurately state my position and hopefully even convince you that I have been reading the posts./(He is saying, Don’t worry dude, I’m not done converting you yet)./
Nic Dec 3rd, 2006 at 1:46 am
One Eyed Jack,
You wrote, “You (me) said there is no basis for a naturalist evolution of morality.†- Let me clarify. Murray Eden, a statistician at MIT once used high-speed computers to ask a question: Beginning with chaos at any acceptable amount of time up to eight billion years ago, could the present complexity come by chance?/ (As far as I can tell, he functions at that speed)/
The answer was absolutely not. However, that experiment was a long time ago. Many argue that it is out dated. Here’s my perspective: Charles Darwin said he couldn’t fathom the formation of the human eye by natural selection, yet he believed that reason convinced him that it was possible. And I agree. I think that it can be argued very persuasively that natural selection is capable of creating the human eye, and even an extremely complicated system of laws based on morality. I do not think that atheistic evolution is the best explanation for the observable cosmos and all of its particulars, but nonetheless, it is a somewhat viable explanation. Here is my point: Natural selection applied socially can account for our “considering†murder to be wrong; however, it cannot account for it’s actually being inherently wrong./ (What he said there, is that regardless of the seven or eight, previous posts, explaining how morality has worked itself into our DNA for the sake of our own good. He will not acknowledge those posts, because they cut Jesus out of the equation)./
Nic Dec 3rd, 2006 at 1:52 am
Fr. Corpus Callosum,
You wrote, “Imagine God as a parent who says he ‘loves his children unconditionally’. One of his children does something that is absolutely against the rules of the household; something that the parent considers to be an abomination. The parent is sad, because he loves his child, but the infraction must be punished. So he kills the child. He didn’t want to do it, but the child drove him to it by breaking the rules, and breaking the rules must be punished.â€/ (What he just said there, is that it is OK to kill your child, so long as it is in Gods order of things, no matter how much it hurts you to kill your own child. God comes first! More on this in a second)./
/
There are a few realities that I would like to share with you:
1.) It is very possible that God is, as it were, allergic to sin. This is a concept that is hard to grasp. However, the Bible seems to teach this to be true. Sin is more than just disobedience to some arbitrary standard. It is something, which is inherently other than God, who is life, and thus, sin is death. I believe sin literally separated God from all creation. It closed the system./ (This completes that it is OK to kill our child, God is allergic to sin! So you had to do it! By the way, does anybody know why God is allergic to sin? I mean come on? God created everything! Why the hell did he give himself an allergy)?/
2.) We observe the effects of this separation and call it the second law of thermodynamics. However, God’s death (Jesus on the cross) enables Him to re-enter and be immanent in the cosmos. How that works exactly I do not know./ (I think that’s why he created sin, it gave him an excuse to nail his own kid up on a cross. Why not? Heck, I’m a dad myself, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve said… Damn I wish I could nail my kid to a cross)!/
3.) Hell is extremely relative. That is, each person will experience “hell†differently. Hell is not a place of literal fire. Fire was simply the best thing God could compare it to so that we could reference the absolute terror of the place. Hell is going to be worse than eternal burning. How?/ (There will be no beer there)!/
4.) I do not know, but it is eternal death, which is eternal separation from God, who is Life./ (Seems like he means to say, hell is death! Live in this world folks! Don’t go through life worried about death! It’s a given, deal with it when the time comes)./
3.) No one has to go to hell./ (We are all going to die someday, it’s a given)!/
God made a way for every one to escape death and re-enter life. Sin is someone saying, “Go away God!†Hell is God granting their wish. C.S. Lewis once said, “The doors of hell are locked from the inside.â€
5.) God is a gentleman./ (Just don’t piss him off! I just realized something, I think I might be God? We have the same temperament)!/
6.) He did not want robots that were forced to love Him so He created men with freewill. I love my wife. I hope that she never leaves me, but I don’t want to chain her up in our home so that she can’t leave./ (He pays an S&M artist $300.00 an hour to do that for him, while he plays with a gay dope dealer. It keeps his marriage together)./
7.) I want her to love me with an authentic love, and be with me because she desires to do so. It’s the same with God./ (She does and is)./
Think about this: It grieves God for His creations to perish. However, He was willing to endure that kind of heartache just to enjoy authentic fellowship with people who would allow Him to save them./ (Lets not forget too, that God is allergic to sin)./
Imagine a man who knows that in order for him to experience the joys of having children his wife will have to endure horrible pain and they will have to lose many children. Imagine that somehow he knew those children that would be lost, and I mean really knew them intimately. Know this: God loves everyone and desires for everyone to be saved. He was willing to endure the tremendous heartache of losing some of His beloved creations for the joys of having an authentic relationship with the others. God doesn’t want anyone to perish. People choose to go to hell, because they choose to remain separated from God./ (And or they pissed God off)!/
/
Let me give you a court illustration (It’s a true story.):
A young women was ticketed for speeding. On her day in court she was brought before the judge and asked if she was guilty. She pled guilty. The judge brought down the gavel and fined her $100 or 10 days in jail. Then something amazing happened. The judge got up, took off his robe, walked down around in front, took out his billfold, and paid the fine. (What’s the explanation?/ His wife told him he better get their kid out of that jam! Doh!)./ The young woman was the judge’s daughter. He loved his daughter, but he was a just judge. His daughter had broken the law and no matter how much he loved her he had to punish her crime./(Even if it meant paying her fine! What did the daughter learn? It’s OK to break the law! My dad’s a judge and has money too)!/
/
It’s the same way with God. He is the perfect Judge. He has to punish our sins. The penalty for sin is death. So He came down here to earth and He paid our penalty. He died our death./(Anybody realize how stupid that sounds)?/
Nic Dec 3rd, 2006 at 1:57 am
Alchemist,
You wrote, “How do you reconcile the wholesale destruction of human life in the name of God?†– I don’t!
/
You wrote, “You have god upon your side. Don’t the Muslims, the Jews, the Zoroastrians. You all believe in the same god!†– No we don’t./ (Another jab at the Muslims, dang he don’t like them Muslims)!/
Christians and Jews worship the same God; however, the Christians have a more complete revelation of that God. That’s not an egotistical statement. First, note that Christians are not a race of people. The first Christians were Jews and there are still many Jewish Christians a.k.a. Messianic Jews. Secondly, this more complete revelation was first foretold to the Jews (333 prophecies, which Jewish and Christian scholars agree are references to the Messiah; these prophecies were written 500+ years before Jesus was born. Dr. Peter Stoner has shown the fulfillment of these prophecies to be practically impossible statistically (The odds of one man fulfilling just 8 of those 333 are 1 in 10 to the seventeenth power.). The American Scientific Association backed his findings. Jesus fulfilled these prophecies, all 333. As for Muslims, etc. they worship an entirely different God./ (What he said there, Jews aren’t to bad, they just aren’t as smart as Christians, I mean they just aren’t as up to date as the Christians are, yeah that’s it! And dang hitting the Muslims again)!/
/
You wrote, “Why do you kill each other?†– Ignorance. Religion is a human construct. The Bible rarely uses the word religion. It defines religion as, “Helping widows and orphans.†The Bible is a guide to relating to God and people. People made religion what it is not God!
/
You wrote, “Why must people suffer for your beliefs - those with multiple sclerosis and other illness that could be cured through stem-cell research?†– I should probably let gill, jingles or One Eyed Jack answer this question for you since they are all so skilled in illustrating why the majority has the right to determine what is moral.
/
You answered you own question about the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
/
Earlier some one made a rather extensive list of passages, which “prove†God is evil. If any one wants to choose a couple for me to interpret I will be glad to give it a shot. I invited that person to do so, but they never took me up on the offer./ (Again he won’t answer a question, he will only ask you to ask it again, this goes around and around and around)./
Nic Dec 3rd, 2006 at 3:34 am
Jingles,
You wrote, “…While the forcing of society’s norm upon an individual may sound cruel, it pales in comparison to forcing an individual’s views upon all of society.†- Please read my most recent post to Gill. Do you still feel the same way?/ (That was some of his best stuff! Hope you are converted now)!/
/
Oh, and way back you wrote, “One last thing… where did this no free will bit come from? As far as I can tell, in the religion v atheism debate, if any side stifles free will, it is the religious one.†Only the Calvinistic Theologians (Basically John Calvin’s Theology is like Newtonian Physics, i.e. God is to Calvinism what the laws of Physics are to the Newtonian Model.) - How do atheists account for freewill? I thought it was all just cause and effect. We’re all a bunch of simple chemical reactions, right? The cause and effect machine predetermines our choices, right? Or are our choices random swerves in our quantum particles. Seems like it would take an awful lot of those random swerves, after all, we are talking about subatomic particle causing macro organisms to make complicated decisions. What’ s you answer. I am very interested.
/ (I’m a little confused here, but did he just say that “free will” means to believe in the bible, and not what you want to believe in? Yeah, by God, I think that’s what he just said)!/
That Wenchy Character,
You wrote, “nic, where is the Christian morality in purposely traveling to, and preaching against the use of condoms in countries where lack of information makes AIDS rife? I consider that dissemination of misinformation akin to murder of innocents!!!!†- I answered you, but probably not very well./ (Most honest thing he’s said so far)./
My wife is a nurse. She and I have had the opportunity to give lectures on Sex & STD’s to High School students. She and I discussed our paradigm with God and with each other. Here is what we did: We told the students condoms could help protect them against pregnancy, and STD’s, but they are not full proof. The only way to be absolutely sure that they will not get pregnant before they are ready, or that they will not get these horrific diseases was for them to follow God’s plan of one man and one woman being married and having sex with no one except each other. – What do you think about the way we handled that topic?
.
.
I knew from the very first post I read of nics, that he was some type of crusader.
I am the father of a fifteen year-old girl. The wife and I are members of her school board.
We get “invitations” from the likes of morons like him to come and preach at our school.
100% of the time the board votes them out. 100%. I live in a decent community and we don’t want these jerks to come preach their line of shit to our kids. They say it is to promote safe sex, it is to promote their God! Under the guise of safe sex. My kid is educated by her mom and myself on this topic, thank you for your concern! 21 is the age of consent where I live, we teach that abstinence is the best way to go, until you are of age, so to speak. She is fully aware of STD’s and contraceptives, this is 2006 for God’s sake! I said for God’s sake! Heh heh.
Her mother and I HOPE (key word here) that she will wait until she’s of age to have sex. And hope that she chooses to find love and to stay in a monogamous relationship, before having sex. Be it with a man or woman. We learn by example, hey does that have anything to do with morality? Humm? These are our ideals, I don’t care if anybody agrees with them or not, it’s my life and my kids life. Get the picture there? Stay out of MY shit and we’ll get along fine.
Which is also why I’m taking the time to write this, as stated this is the FSM.
I am educated, In the RC church and in the real world.
I come here to worship beer volcano’s and pirates! MY choice! And when the likes of a “nic” show up, it pisses me right off! Lets think about this, how would nic feel if I busted into his church in the middle of a sermon, dressed as a pirate. And sat down next to his wife and announced (out loud in the middle of the sermon) that beer volcanoes are the only thing that is absolute! His bunch of Jesus freaks would lynch me for sure! Hell yea they would! So keep that in mind if I should sound kinda pissie to the likes of a nic.
This is MY church he just busted in to! And he is trying to disrupt the flow of MY beer volcano’s with his God!
Nic, do not reply to me! I am sharpening my cutlass and I’m half way through a twelve pack. This is how I spend MY Sundays by the way, and you really don’t want to piss me off more then you already have!
To everybody else… Peace Love and…
Ramen