Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian

Keli wrote:
I know a lot of people who have no personality. Should we kill them?

A few of them anyway, .......... cause they need a good killing.

Oh, Sammy, Sammy, Sammy-baby......

All those "abortions" "Mother Nature" "performs" before anyone is even aware their was a pregnancy to end are almost without a doubt nonviable. Something was so drastically wrong the fertilized egg or zygote could not survive to develop to an embryo or fetus, much less a baby.

When a couple or a member of a couple decides they no longer love and/or wish to honor etc the partner they are married to they get a divorce and/or annulment thus ending the marriage. When a doctor who to an oath to DO NO HARM decides to start killing unborn people they don't relinquish their medical license. Are you suggesting they should? I'm insisting such license should be stripped from anyone willing to kill an innocent human being for money.

I can and will only speak for myself when it comes to being requested sex by an "unknown" male. The only time I ever even came close to saying yes was when heavily under the influence of alcohol (and dare I admit a bit of weed) at a nightclub a few days after I learned the scumbag I was married to was having an affair with a 15 y/o cashier at the Burger King he managed. The young man in question was some sort of Latino and I've had a thing for that look for a very long time. Lornezo Lamas, Ricky Martin (of course he's gay "god" has never been that kind to women before why should he start now), Antonio Banderas, Esai Morales, and others I've always found extraordinarily easy on the eyes. Whoaaa.......don't get me going.

Still, I managed to turn him down. I'm not sure how, but I did it. LOL

Now we'll get to personality of unborn persons. Your insistance that unborn people have no personality and that personality is what gives us our humanity is just plain bunk. As the mother of a gaggle of kids I can assure you each and every one of them was born with their own distinct personality. They had different temperments and some were more easily satisfied than others while others were more demanding. Some were more interested in what they were thinking or doing and others were more interested what I was thinking and doing. They did not all have the same personality at birth, but they surely did have personalities.

Hell's bells even my cats all have their own personalities. Sadly some people do not. There are some people who DO have personalities but due to physical or mental limitations are unable to adequately express them. They too are human beings.

Finally, perhaps I was not precise enough in my earlier post. How's this...we can debate when HUMAN life begins. A cancerous tumor is alive, but it is not a human. That damn fungus that is already attacking my tomato plants is alive too, but it is not human life.

Cheers!

SheikBen wrote:

Stephanie wrote:No Cato, it is not the same thing. Abortion is the intentional taking of a human life. Homosexual sex between two single, consenting adults harms no one if the partners use protection and/or are monogamous.

This brings out the distinction between moral and human law. I agree that both abortion and homosexual sex are immoral, but I only care to use human law to prevent the one. There are a great many things that are immoral but yet do not affect those beyond the behavior, or at least not to the point of a government having "compelling interest." I would not legislate covetousness, greed, disrespect to parents, etc.

Abortion, however, harms those who are not consenting to the behavior.

As to gay marriage, I have long held that the state should not be in the marriage business, and if it must be in the business, then that reason for being must itself be elucidated before the definition of marriage is to be expanded. Still, what two people do in the comfort (or discomfort) of their own home is not of my immediate business. I'm sure that such actions will be judged (and I will have much to be ashamed of when the film of my own life is shown), and I believe strongly that God disapproves. As to the state, it has other matters about which to attend, and I'm too busy trying to keep my own ship steady than to care what the neighbors are up to.

First things first, a peice of advice, don't ever, ever, ever fertilize your yard during a wet spring. I mowed my yard twice Friday. One to get it down to where I could mow it and the second time to get it down to something manageable.

When the first amendment was pinned, the thought behind it was that no person should be forced into supporting policy to which they objected. While the first amendment speaks to religion alone, the idea, the principle of not forcing one to participate in policy to which the object remains. Of course, our leaders over the years have made shambles of the principle of not forcing policy on people to which the disagree.

Like you I find both abortion and homosexual marriage immoral. I object to being forced by the government to support either in any way, shape, or form. Liberty means that I have the right to live my life as I see fit. I have the right to associate with those I choose and not associate with those I choose not to. Liberty means I have the right to use the property I paid for and paid the taxes on as I determine I fit. Just like you I will not use my property in a manner that I object to.

Cato I absolutely support your right to use your property however you wish. I've never suggested otherwise. I think you should be able to rent to, or not rent to, whomever you wish.

SheikBen wrote:Cato I absolutely support your right to use your property however you wish. I've never suggested otherwise. I think you should be able to rent to, or not rent to, whomever you wish.

Sorry about that Sheik. I was responding to Stephanie's reply, which you also replied to. Instead of quote just her, I quoted both of you. Just a case Oldhimers, I guess.

Cato, I also support your right to use your property however you wish. I don't think the government should force you to rent to homosexuals or abortionists or agnostics if you don't want to. I certainly never meant to suggest I do.

Stephanie wrote:Cato, I also support your right to use your property however you wish. I don't think the government should force you to rent to homosexuals or abortionists or agnostics if you don't want to. I certainly never meant to suggest I do.

I know that, Stephanie, and I appreciate your stance.

Stephanie wrote:Oh, Sammy, Sammy, Sammy-baby......

All those "abortions" "Mother Nature" "performs" before anyone is even aware their was a pregnancy to end are almost without a doubt nonviable. Something was so drastically wrong the fertilized egg or zygote could not survive to develop to an embryo or fetus, much less a baby.

Alrighty, .... Steph, ........ you make the call on this one.

Chinese twins born in single body with 2 heads

A hospital in southwestern China says conjoined twin baby girls with a single body and two heads have been born at its facility.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/05/09/chinese-twins-born-single-body-2-heads/?test=latestnews

What call? That's so sad, Sam.

SamCogar wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Oh, Sammy, Sammy, Sammy-baby......

All those "abortions" "Mother Nature" "performs" before anyone is even aware their was a pregnancy to end are almost without a doubt nonviable. Something was so drastically wrong the fertilized egg or zygote could not survive to develop to an embryo or fetus, much less a baby.

Alrighty, .... Steph, ........ you make the call on this one.

*

*

*

*

*

Chinese twins born in single body with 2 heads

A hospital in southwestern China says conjoined twin baby girls with a single body and two heads have been born at its facility.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/05/09/chinese-twins-born-single-body-2-heads/?test=latestnews

Killing them would be better? Should we also kill those born without a limb? Those born with a below average IQ?

Of course, Sam uses one horrible example to justify the 98 percent of abortions on babies not the result of rape or born with two heads or born with tay sachs, etc.

Stephanie wrote:What call? That's so sad, Sam.

Steph, I posted that pic because of this statement by you.

All those "abortions" "Mother Nature" "performs" before anyone is even aware their was a pregnancy to end are almost without a doubt nonviable.

And given the defination of ..... viable, ..... to wit:

vi·a·ble (v-bl) adj.
1. Capable of living, developing, or germinating under favorable conditions.
2. Capable of living outside the uterus. Used of a fetus or newborn.
3. Capable of success or continuing effectiveness; practicable

Me thinks there are several millions of children that require up to 24-7 care ....... and a big majority of them will never be "Capable of success or continuing effectiveness" .......... but on the contrary, ....... those nonviables suck the resource$ away, at probably a 10 to 1 ratio, from the children who are "Capable of success or continuing effectiveness".

In the WVPSS we spend approximately $8,000+- per student per year, for 12 to 15 years, (Headstart thru 12th) in a half-hearted attempt to teach the potentially viable students to become "capable of success" ...... but with limited success at doing said, ......... whereas we spend up to $80,000+- per student per year, for 12 to 15 years, primarily babysetting the nonviable students in a pseudo attempt to teach them a few basic skills to help a wee bit in caring for themselves for the rest of their life including yearly government expenditures of $20K to $40K+ per year.

The viables are becoming less viable every year ....... and the nonviables are increasing in numbers every year and becoming more expensive to babysit and care for for the rest of their lives. A "trend" exacerbated by good intentions and sympathy that is unsustainable in the long term.

SheikBen wrote:Of course, Sam uses one horrible example to justify the 98 percent of abortions on babies not the result of rape or born with two heads or born with tay sachs, etc.

Now, now, Michael, ..... iffen I remember correctly, Th has also used a "horrible bloody example" to justify his stance on abortions.

Besides, my "example" was not to justify abortions, ...... but merily to point out that not all nonviable fetuses are "naturally aborted".

SamCogar wrote:

SheikBen wrote:Of course, Sam uses one horrible example to justify the 98 percent of abortions on babies not the result of rape or born with two heads or born with tay sachs, etc.

Now, now, Michael, ..... iffen I remember correctly, Th has also used a "horrible bloody example" to justify his stance on abortions.

Besides, my "example" was not to justify abortions, ...... but merily to point out that not all nonviable fetuses are "naturally aborted".

Meet Brittany and Abby Hensel. They are 21 years old by the way.

" alt="" />

So the question is, who are you to decide who is nonviable and who isn't?

Now I think a few of you need to go see your Doctor and have him/her schedule you for an Optoectomy, the sooner the better.

Ifffen you don’t know what an Optoectomy is, ….. it is a simple Outpatient procedure where the surgeon severs the “connection” between your eyes and your rectum …… which will immediately cure your shitty outlook on life.

And hopefully it will also cure you dastardly, deviously habit of launching a “personal attack” against any messenger that “speaks the truth” …… that you don’t like or want to hear.

I have never claimed or presented anything in justification of 98 percent of abortions.

I have never claimed to be the “decider” of who is nonviable and who isn't.

I have never claimed, asserted or demanded that a pregnant female, any pregnant female, should or should not have or be permitted to have an abortion.

It has always been my belief and stance that it is the female’s decision as to whether or not she wants to abort her fetus, or abort her tapeworm, or abort her tumor, …… all three of which are parasitic growths within her body.

What the hell is it with you all? You claim to adamantly support everyone’s right to use their personally owned property however they wish to use it, …….. but in the same breath of air you adamantly deny everyone’s right to use their own personal body however they wish to use it, …… and that is solely because you want to be “lord n’ master” with the power to dictate what they can or can not use their own personal body for. Iffen they don’t want to use their body as an incubator for a parasite, then that is their choice.

All of that horsehockey about “OH, it’s a human life” is a bunch of “feeling good all over more than anyplace else” crapolla because the aborting, stillbirth or miscarriage of another person’s fetus doesn’t affect your life, health or well being one way or the other. But now iffen you were a slave owner and one of your female slaves wanted to abort her fetus, then “Yes”, that would have an affect on your well being.

because the aborting, stillbirth or miscarriage of another person’s fetus doesn’t affect your life, health or well being one way or the other.

You tell my husband and children that my daughter's death didn't affect their lives, Sammy.

Sam,
Were you a parasite?

Keli

SamCogar wrote:
All of that horsehockey about “OH, it’s a human life” is a bunch of “feeling good all over more than anyplace else” crapolla because the aborting, stillbirth or miscarriage of another person’s fetus doesn’t affect your life, health or well being one way or the other.

Like Stephanie we lost a child to a miscarriage and I can tell personally for experience it does affect you, in more ways than you can imagine.

There ya’ll go again, ….. picky, picky, picky.

Here, I will clarify my statement, to wit:

because the aborting, stillbirth or miscarriage of another unrelated, non-neighbor, non-close friend, non-idol, non-secret lover, non-favorite politician person’s fetus doesn’t affect your life, health or well being one way or the other.

Did I miss anyone?

SamCogar wrote:There ya’ll go again, ….. picky, picky, picky.

Here, I will clarify my statement, to wit:

because the aborting, stillbirth or miscarriage of another unrelated, non-neighbor, non-close friend, non-idol, non-secret lover, non-favorite politician person’s fetus doesn’t affect your life, health or well being one way or the other.

Did I miss anyone?

Here is what you originally said -

Sam Cogar wrote: because the aborting, stillbirth or miscarriage of another person’s fetus doesn’t affect your life, health or well being one way or the other.

Don't go changing it now.

Now let me clarify, : To Wit - You don't have a clue what you are talking about!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cato wrote:Here is what you originally said -

Sam Cogar wrote: because the aborting, stillbirth or miscarriage of another person’s fetus doesn’t affect your life, health or well being one way or the other.

NO SHIT ............. did you figure that out all by yourself?

Cato wrote:Don't go changing it now.

Well now you sometimes hafta try changing it after ya figure out you were trying to explain something to non-thinking "1 track minded" juveniles in adult bodies whose only interest is to prove themselves right, no matter what or how.

Iffen I had been agreeing with you on some Biblical scripture ...... and used the phrase "of another person’s whatever" ..... you wouldn't have had a problem understanding what I meant.

Why so, Cato, why so? ............. DUH

Cato wrote:Now let me clarify, : To Wit - You don't have a clue what you are talking about!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Way to go, Cato, way to go, ...... and after you convince yourself of that ...... then you can dismiss everything I said, regardless of whether it was right, factual or true, ...... and continue on believing yourself to be "right as rain".

SamCogar wrote:

Cato wrote:Here is what you originally said -

Sam Cogar wrote: because the aborting, stillbirth or miscarriage of another person’s fetus doesn’t affect your life, health or well being one way or the other.

NO SHIT ............. did you figure that out all by yourself?

Cato wrote:Don't go changing it now.

Well now you sometimes hafta try changing it after ya figure out you were trying to explain something to non-thinking "1 track minded" juveniles in adult bodies whose only interest is to prove themselves right, no matter what or how.

Iffen I had been agreeing with you on some Biblical scripture ...... and used the phrase "of another person’s whatever" ..... you wouldn't have had a problem understanding what I meant.

Why so, Cato, why so? ............. DUH

Cato wrote:Now let me clarify, : To Wit - You don't have a clue what you are talking about!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Way to go, Cato, way to go, ...... and after you convince yourself of that ...... then you can dismiss everything I said, regardless of whether it was right, factual or true, ...... and continue on believing yourself to be "right as rain".

Colorful, but all the same, meaningless, Sammy.

In your first comment another person could have meant your wife or daughter. While I don't imagine you really have any feelings, most spouses and parents would be affected.

Since I don't imagine you as one who has empathy for the feelings of others, I guess you wouldn't be bothered if a friend of yours lost a child either.

A Time for Everything

1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

2 a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;

3 a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

4 a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

5 a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;

6 a time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;

7 a time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;

8 a time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

14 I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.

15 That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past.

The hypocritical actions and demeanor of most all avowed Christians never ceases to amaze me.

They are deviously notorious for selectively “picking n’ choosing” those parts and portions of their Bible’s content/context, …… including their most favored definitions/explanations of said, ….. that best suits their professed “Brand of Christianity” ….. with said “choice” being highly dependent upon who they are conversing with, who is in their company and the situation they are confronted with at any given time or place.

In the above quoted Bible text it specifically states “a time”, meaning a singular time, a singular time for each and every specific thing to occur. No where therein does it state “times”, meaning multiple times, multiple times for each and every specific thing to occur.

But I am sure the devious hypocrites will translate “a time” to mean whatever best suits their needs or situation. They will be forced to just to CTA for their actions of “multiple times of weeping” that which hath already been, …… and their “multiple times of mourning” that which hath already been

No planting or reaping or working today, ..... let's all do something that is really constructive and rewarding by having a "feel good" pity party.

Sam,

A couple of thoughts. First, a "time" can obviously mean something that is repetetive, as surely the author knew that wars and embraces happen more than once. In English, even, we had a great time, it was about time, there is always more time, and what time is it?

As to the "a la carte" Christianity, granted that folks can practice it, including me. Hypocrisy does not invalidate the message, however, just as when a doctor smokes two packs a day and eats fried chicken he is not wrong that both could cause him troubles. If hypocrisy or "selective implementation" is your issue with Christianity, Sam, I fear that you are grasping for straws. None of us live consistent lives.

As to abortion, it is true that sometimes there are spontaneous abortions, and that these are altogether sad. God is sovereign, and yes, He can choose to prevent these (as well as elective abortions). When we choose to kill unborn children, however, we are claiming to be the Sovereign over innocent life and death. It does not affect me, granted. In fact, abortions kill the children of Democrats at a rate far outpacing that of Republicans. That, of course, does not make it right. It is murder--that they are "eating their own" does not make it acceptable. That I am not a victim does not make it acceptable, either.

SheikBen wrote:Sam,

A couple of thoughts. First, a "time" can obviously mean something that is repetetive, as surely the author knew that wars and embraces happen more than once. In English, even, we had a great time, it was about time, there is always more time, and what time is it?

Michael, me thinks your obfuscating comment does not compute with what is stated in Ecclesiastes 3:1 above.

And me no think Christianity condones any "time" of repetetive "I do's", ...... and neither will most spouses.