Women at Casinos

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
I hope you read the post I posted after my short response. The shorter one was due to the fact that you came in and declared that the Bible verses I quoted didn't support the argument I stated, yet you showed no biblical evidence nor any biblical arguments to the contrary. You provided no logical argument as to why the verses wouldn't coincide with what I argued; you only said that they didn't prove what I said that they did. A "No it doesn't" argument is powerless, and not a real answer, so there was no retort needed-my argument still stood unchallenged. My brief statement which you claimed was not from the Bible came from over 15 years of Bible study, and I was responding to someone who, I will take a wild guess, hasn't really spent a whole lot of time studying the Bible since he doesn't believe it, right? If you do present a logical argument for why you believe the verses don't support what I said, then I would gladly retort.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did. I asked:

[ QUOTE ]
Where in the bible does it say that wives should distrust their husbands and follow them around constantly to guard against possibly coming within viewing distance of harlots?

[/ QUOTE ]

You replied "Titus 2:4" which says:

[ QUOTE ]
Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children

[/ QUOTE ]

I responded that 2:3-5 provided more context:

[ QUOTE ]
Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

My full response:

[ QUOTE ]
2:3-5 is clearly instructing older women to teach yonger women to be respectful of their husbands. I don't see anything about keeping your husband's penis on a leash in there. In fact, it seems to be instructing women to stay out of their husbands' business.

[/ QUOTE ]

"To be busy at home... and to be subject to their husbands" - how can you seriously say that supports your position of women distrusting their husbands???

Once I called you on this, you repsond with this:

[ QUOTE ]
Titus 2:4a says for women to be instructed by older women in the church to love their husbands. Where I'm going with this is that love in the Bible is ultimately rooted in Christ, for God is love (I John 4). And love all throughout the Bible, especially in Paul's espistles, is the act of seeking to help one another become more like Christ, i.e., our helping each other be conformed to the image of Christ. This image is one of purity, the opposite of an act like lust. When Jesus says in Matthew 5:27-30 that lusting with our eyes is really, really bad, any wife who reads that who wants her hubby to be more like Christ will naturally wish upon him Philippians 4:8, 2 Cor. 10:5, Col. 3:2 type of thinking, and she will hope to help guard his mind from what Matthew 5 talks about.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're dodging the question. You can't provide a cite that I challenged you for, so instead you provide a cite that God is love (not in dispute) and that lusting is bad (also, not what I asked for). Your other cites are all vaguely (at best) related to this topic. They are generalities. The burden is not on ME to provide anything. You made the statement that your position is in the bible, I merely requested that you back that assertion up.

[ QUOTE ]
The simple fact is that they do, and in all Christian circles, it is a concession; that is why I stated that it was not close. It's not really a point of contention from anyone who reads the Bible on a regular basis and who has a feel for its spirit.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Everybody who agrees with me agrees with my statement" isn't an argument, it's groupthink.

Like I said, you may be technically correct, but you've done a pathetic job of showing it.

[Megenoita]

"Like I said, you may be technically correct, but you've done a pathetic job of showing it."

I didn't realize that you were looking for a chapter and verse that explicitly says that wives should look out for their husband's eyes. The problem I think you are having is in desiring this. There are many things in the Bible that are taught not explicitly through one verse, but implicitly through collective verses-yet the teaching is equally powerful. The latter is what I was showing you.

I am known to be extremely anal with the Bible; I don't go past the posted speed limit, but I play poker. I can do this because the Bible condemns speeding but not poker. With a wife's role to her husband in the Bible, there are many reasons why she needs to love her husband by guarding his eyes. I came to you from the angle that she needs to love him (Titus 2:4), and love seeks the good of its neighbor, and love would never want another to sin, and lust is sin. Love seeks the opposite of sin, which is conformity to Christ, which is, among other things, pure thinking. I quoted verses for this line of thinking, and upon reading over my previous posts, I think it was explained clearly.

The biggest dilemma in responding to you is that I have limited time and space, and I'm responding to someone who is not seeking the Bible, but only to contend. It would be different if you were seeking the Bible, reading diligently, and had questions-you'd see what it says to be sure. But in my position, I'm trying to sum up many years of reading into a few paragraphs, and you're right, it's really hard to do.

This reminds me of when I was at school studying the Bible and a professor came to offer his thoughts on male-female relationships. My class relentlessly ripped him apart, demanding Bible verses to back up every statement he made. He left somewhat disheartened, but over the years I have come to agree with much of what he said that day, despite being one of his opponents at the time. What I've learned from that experience is that this man was speaking from the spirit of the word of God, its heartbeat, and I was too young and inexperienced to understand at the time. All I understood was individual, clear verses, but anything deeper and I was lost.

I don't mean to insult you at all, and this is partly my fault for not explaining more clearly, but the fact that women who are one flesh with their husbands should care for their husbands' eyes not to sin is a clear principle in the Bible, and I think I pointed out a good line of argumentation that is consistent with Scripture.

M

[tylerdurden]

Once again, you have dodged the question. Not ONCE have you addressed my original question. Let me rephrase it for you a bit.

How is a marriage where the womand does not trust her husband ever going to work? How does a woman that lives in constant fear "for their husbands' eyes not to sin" ever trust her husband? Can you truly love someone (in the manner a person should love a spouse, not in the "love the sinner" sense) that you don't trust? Equally importantly, can you love someone that doesn't trust you?

In short, is trust not a component of love for you?

If you want to keep going in the "if you only agreed with me, then you'd see what I'm saying" circle, then fine. I suppose if I read long enough I can get whatever interpretation is needed for a given situation.

[Emperor]

This woman loves her husband and is concerned for his soul. She is not concerned that he is going to stray from his marriage.

1 Corinthians 13

Love

1If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.
4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

[Megenoita]

[ QUOTE ]
Once again, you have dodged the question. Not ONCE have you addressed my original question. Let me rephrase it for you a bit.

How is a marriage where the womand does not trust her husband ever going to work? How does a woman that lives in constant fear "for their husbands' eyes not to sin" ever trust her husband? Can you truly love someone (in the manner a person should love a spouse, not in the "love the sinner" sense) that you don't trust? Equally importantly, can you love someone that doesn't trust you?

In short, is trust not a component of love for you?

If you want to keep going in the "if you only agreed with me, then you'd see what I'm saying" circle, then fine. I suppose if I read long enough I can get whatever interpretation is needed for a given situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to give you a thorough explanation now that I have time. Up until now, I haven't had a chance to sit down really go through everything you've written and address each aspect.

Your original question was:

"Where in the bible does it say that wives should distrust their husbands and follow them around constantly to guard against possibly coming within viewing distance of harlots?"

My answer to you was Titus 2:4 where wives are instructed to love their husbands. What you call "distrust", I am calling love. I was preparing to expand from there if you continued the discussion.

To that, you responded,

"2:3-5 is clearly instructing older women to teach yonger women to be respectful of their husbands. I don't see anything about keeping your husband's penis on a leash in there. In fact, it seems to be instructing women to stay out of their husbands' business.

Unless your friend's wife is going to the casino to admonish the hos (and let her husband play poker in peace), you'll have to find something better."

You missed the point, thinking that I sent you that verse as a proof that wives should distrust their husbands. I was simply displaying a verse that says that wives should love their husbands, and later I was planning on showing you why this is biblical love, and not distrust.

Here is my explication:

"Titus 2:4a says for women to be instructed by older women in the church to love their husbands. Where I'm going with this is that love in the Bible is ultimately rooted in Christ, for God is love (I John 4). And love all throughout the Bible, especially in Paul's espistles, is the act of seeking to help one another become more like Christ, i.e., our helping each other be conformed to the image of Christ. This image is one of purity, the opposite of an act like lust. When Jesus says in Matthew 5:27-30 that lusting with our eyes is really, really bad, any wife who reads that who wants her hubby to be more like Christ will naturally wish upon him Philippians 4:8, 2 Cor. 10:5, Col. 3:2 type of thinking, and she will hope to help guard his mind from what Matthew 5 talks about.

In other words, biblical love is seeking for all people to think and be like the One who saved us, and a wife's role is especially strong in that way because she is "one flesh" with her husband."

To delineate the above:

1. Wives are to love their husbands (Titus 2:4).
2. Love is rooted in God, in Christ (I John 4).
3. Love all throughout the Bible, especially in Paul's epistles, is the act of seeking to help one another become more like Christ, a.k.a. helping each other be conformed to the image of Christ.
4. The above mentioned image is one of purity, the opposite of an act such as lust. Matthew 5:27-30 demonstrates why lust is so bad.
5. A loving wife will wish upon her husband Phil. 4:8, 2 Cor. 10:5, Col. 3:2 type of thinking, which is the pure thinking of Christ, and she will seek to guard him from the damage of disobeying Matthew 5.
6. A wife's role is especially strong in aiding her husband's conformity to Christ because she is not only his sister in Christ, but also his own flesh. This is why she would have a greater influence on his eyes than anyone else; they are her eyes, too.

I don't think this line of argument is unclear, and it's certainly logically consistent. My only worry is that I am not communicating it clearly.

Next, you responded:

"You've got to be kidding. If a woman trusts her husband enough to be a responsible gambler, she should trust him enough to be in the same building with young nubile females. Period. What you describe in the original post ("his wife really doesn't want him to play live poker because of how women around him would be dressed") isn't loving concern, it's paranoia. Nothing you can quote from the bible is going to justify that IMO."

Notice that you didn't respond to the construction of the logical argument from the Bible. You didn't contend the verses or any of the connections to the reasoning I offered. You didn't say, "The Bible doesn't say that." You made no attempt at refutation whatever. All you did was disagree, defining trust in your own terms and defining what I called love as "paranoia". Since this is all you did, my response was:

"I understand that you disagree. But the Bible says what it says."

In other words, as you did not contend the logic from the Bible, all you did do was say, "I don't agree", at which point I simply say, "Okay, we agree to disagree."

I decided to add another response because I noticed where our point of disagreement was, and that is the area of trust. What is trust, and what isn't it? I said:

"The Bible undermines your statement that if Roy's wife trusted her, she would have no problem with his being in a place where women are dressed all crazy. The Bible teaches that a person isn't strong because he or she is impervious to a temptation, but because one is wise enough to flee from it. This is what the verse "Let every one who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall" means." (I went on...)

You replied:

"OK, this is the point at which I plonk you. When challenged to provide a cite where the bible says what you say it does, you throw something out. When it's pointed out that what you cited does NOT in fact back up your point, you make up a cover story and throw out some vague references. When pressed further, you simply respond "it's in there, trust me, QED.""

This bothered me because you rejected the biblical argument I presented, but with no reasoning other than, "I disagree. I don't think that's what love is." You're not disagreeing with my presentation of the Bible, but with the Bible itself. And if you are disagreeing with my presentation, you have not argued any consistent argument as to why my presentation is off. You called my references "vague", but they are very specific to the mindset of Christ and pure thinking that He desires in us. If you want dozens of more verses that say that if we care about a person, our number one goal should be to help them obey God, then I can offer those, but I really don't think that's what you're looking for. I think you just disagree with what the Bible calls "love", and why the Bible doesn't support your notion of "trust".

What does the Bible say about trusting people? It's very harsh--not at all what one might expect to hear. It actually teaches that humans by nature are not trustworthy; we cannot even trust ourselves! A man's heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick. No one can understand it (Jeremiah 17:9). The Bible says that he who follows his own heart is a fool (Proverbs 28:26). There is a way that seems right to a man, but the end is the way of death (Proverbs 16:25). Even the great Apostle Paul said that he knows there is nothing good that dwells in him, in his flesh (Romans 7:18). This is why he taught that Christians must walk by the Spirit, meaning obey God's word, so that they will not carry out their natural desires, the desires of the flesh (Galatians 5:16). "For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these two are in opposition to each other, so that you may not do the things that you please." What Gal. 5:17 means there is that Christians have an inner war going on, and they must constantly be guarding their minds against what they are naturally inclined to do (sin). The only way that man can keep his way pure is by obeying the Bible (Psalm 119:9). Men pray that God will not let them wander from His commandments (119:10); surely a wife would also try to help in any way she can, being one flesh with her husband, his helpmeet (Genesis). And he would seek to help guard her mind as well.

Interesting is that in Galatians 5, the first three "deeds of the flesh" mentioned are sexually related: immorality, impurity, and sensuality.

As believers in Christ, God and the Bible, our trust for another person comes from knowing their relationship with God is strong and growing, and if we are related to them, which we are at least as "brothers in Christ", then we naturally desire to help them along the path of obeying God. This is what Roy's wife is doing.

M

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
What you call "distrust", I am calling love.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's all I needed to read. Thanks.

[Smiler74]

*sigh*

I've read half this thread and while I've seen it before, it never fails to astonish me how the born-agains will absolutely take over any conversation or debate given the chance. This thread is a flimsy excuse to begin a religious debate and 100% inappropriate and I'm so irritated that noone has pointed this out.

Someone wake me up when we get to the part about how the earth was created in 6 days and how gays and jews and the pope are going to hell. All this crap about how one particular version out of literally hundreds of books is the all defining law for how to live with god's favor is putting me to sleep.

I read something before about "simply studying" the text of the bible and how simple it all is. What crap. It's a historical document, written by dozens of groups of people over a period of hundreds of years. Parts were clipped out, others added in, changes were made, it was translated, revised and then translated back and edited to reflect current political ideas, power structures and the whims of kings throughout the last couple thousand years. If you are so keen on an honest academic study of the text, then don't stick your head in the sand and ignore the literal way thing thing actually came to be. Don't tell me that your version (well worn from vigorous thumping, I'm sure) is THE one to go with. Don't ignore the myriad contradictions and mixed messages it conveys and don't twist what it does contain to suit your own purposes and advance a conservative agenda. And don't try to tell me some of you here and the others like you aren't trying to do this very thing.

It's an interesting book, full of good and inspirational insight, but it's a historical document and I will never accept the unbearable arrogance that one version is more rightous than another.

Supposedly, god made my brain and gave me common sense. Boith are totally offended by this. I guess the "devil" is causing that. I suppose I'm going to hell now for using my head.

Good grief. Think for yourselves. Treat people the way you want to be treated, live a good life, be tolerent, live and learn and use the gifts god gave you and keep an open mind. I don't care what you believe in, but come down from the high horse already.

Otherwise, please shut the hell up with this hypocrisy. I'm sure god is smiling at your gambling now that jesus sacrificed himself. *eye roll* COME ON.

I can't believe thsi thread, I really can't. Your pal is worried about disrespecting his wife by looking at passing women? What does he do with his TV? Does he read any other books? Does he listen to the radio or go to movies? Does he dream?

What's the saying? "Use the sense god gave you?" Is life really this hard? Are people really so lost and weak that they need this kind of pablum to guide them? Don't cheat. Done. Over.

So aggravating. I would never be found creating a thread here for an excuse to spout my own beliefs. What a ridiculous question. And of course it worked and I'm responding to it like an idiot.

I guess I better go save my soul and life the Biblical life. Maybe I'll tell my wife to "obey" me and quit her job and then go shoot some craps. What a disgrace.

I'm certain god loves you, but I'm also certain that he shakes his head sometimes at stuff like this.

[Emperor]

Another conspiracy theorist. Sweet. "Its rigged!"

[ QUOTE ]
I've read half this thread and while I've seen it before, it never fails to astonish me how the born-agains will absolutely take over any conversation or debate given the chance. This thread is a flimsy excuse to begin a religious debate and 100% inappropriate and I'm so irritated that noone has pointed this out.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes thats what we born again Christians love to do. Trick people into replying to non religious posts so we can preach to them. NOT. As far as inappropriate no one has pointed it out because it directly relates to the OP's question.

[ QUOTE ]
Someone wake me up when we get to the part about how the earth was created in 6 days and how gays and jews and the pope are going to hell. All this crap about how one particular version out of literally hundreds of books is the all defining law for how to live with god's favor is putting me to sleep.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are their other religious texts? Sure there are. If you want to risk believing in something other than The Bible then feel free. If they speak differently on the topic at hand and you would like to add to the conversation. I know that us Bible thumpers would love to hear what you have to say.

[ QUOTE ]
I read something before about "simply studying" the text of th! e bible and how simple it all is. What crap. It's a historical document, written by dozens of groups of people over a period of hundreds of years. Parts were clipped out, others added in, changes were made, it was translated, revised and then translated back and edited to reflect current political ideas, power structures and the whims of kings throughout the last couple thousand years. If you are so keen on an honest academic study of the text, then don't stick your head in the sand and ignore the literal way thing thing actually came to be. Don't tell me that your version (well worn from vigorous thumping, I'm sure) is THE one to go with. Don't ignore the myriad contradictions and mixed messages it conveys and don't twist what it does contain to suit your own purposes and advance a conservative agenda. And don't try to tell me some of you here and the others like you aren't trying to do this very thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love this argument. The New Testament is EASILY translated from the ORIGINAL documents as it is written in Greek. Has it gone through a process to determine the accuracy of a particular source of writing. Sure it has. So has every other religious text. If you would like to point out any "mixed messages" or "contradictions", I'd love to hear them, as I don't believe any exist. As far as a conservative agenda, I know that the OP was only looking for an answer to his question, thats all. If the answer had been, "Foxwoods has the ugliest waitresses and patrons, he should go there" then that would have been the end of it. He didn't get this, he got ethical, religious, and philisophical replies that included ethical, religious, and philisophical questions. He replied in form, nothing more. Was he happy to share his beliefs? I am sure he was. Was he happy some might have actually looked up a verse or two? I'm sure he was ecstatic. He doesn't want to preach, he just wants to obey his Lord. That is all.

Do lots of Christians lean towards conservative politics? Sure they do. Not nearly far enough in my opinion. As we still have a VERY Marxist and athiest Federal Government IMO.

As far as God goes. Why do you think He placed you on this earth? I would really like to know what you think.


I believe He placed us on this Earth for one reason. That reason is to prepare us for eternity. Why do we need to be prepared for eternity? He has a very important task for us to do in eternity. To Give Him Glory. I'm not sure what all that will involve, but I'm pretty sure it comes from the love that He wants us to show him while we are here on earth. Otherwise he would just have created us as a perfect being, without free will. He didn't though, he gave us free will, and with that free will comes the freedom to do wrong, to sin. Why would He do this? Have you ever forced. coerced, bribed, tricked, someone into loving you? It isn't satisfying, it isn't righteous, and it doesn't get you the love that you desire. God could have created us so that we loved him by design, but that type of love would have been less than what He desires. He desires for us to use our free will and to love Him. In this way we learn about love in all of its forms, we also learn about sin and all the pain it causes. I believe that this is going to be VERY important in the afterlife to perform my task of giving Him glory.

[Megenoita]

Hi Smiler,

I don't know how fruitful it is to respond to your post, seeing as it seems to be motivated by anger more than sense, but it is so full of false accusations and statements that it is probably better to point them out for the sake of the rest of the thread.

"it never fails to astonish me how the born-agains will absolutely take over any conversation or debate given the chance. This thread is a flimsy excuse to begin a religious debate and 100% inappropriate and I'm so irritated that noone has pointed this out."

Aside from being a clear statement of bigotry (might as well say something like, "Jews are all cheap"), it's also a misrepresentation of this thread. It's unfounded and unsupported. To refute it, all I need to do is point out the flow of the thread-the "religious" talk was borne out of questions from people who were not born-again Christians, and I, among a few other Christians, simply responded. Every time the thread took a step deeper, it was initiated by a post by someone who was not a professing Christian. If you accuse me of trying to get into a religious discussion, you are claiming to know my heart. Honestly, this is the forum where I ask all my poker questions. It is. I was with a friend and his wife, and I posted on here asking a question. Roy said, "You're going to get railed for that", and I said, "Probably, but I'll also probably get a few good answers." That this turned into a religious discussion is not my devising, but of course I don't mind that it did, and of course I enjoy talking about the God who saved me. If you hate that, you're certainly not forced to read and engage in this thread. But whatever you do, don't make false, unmerited accusations in anger.

"If you are so keen on an honest academic study of the text, then don't stick your head in the sand and ignore the literal way thing thing actually came to be."

All of your accusations against the Bible are also untrue. I'll go out on a limb to assume you have never studied the historicity of the Bible? I would encourage you to study it out before making all of these silly jumps to judgment. I for one have studied this subject and am extremely confident in the validity of the text, and the Bible itself has stood up to scrutiny since its inception. Joshua McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict is a great place to start.

The Bible was written by forty authors over a 1,500 year span. Many of your accusations against the text have to do with particular versions, and none of them affect the original manuscripts themselves. There are thousands upon thousands of extant mss. which agree with each other to an extraordinary degree--more closely than any other comparable historical documents because of the measure to which the people who copied them went.

There is a great book by a famous journalist named Lee Strobel called, "The Case For Christ" (also titled, "The Case For Faith"). This man spent time studying out how the Bible came to be in order to discredit it, and he was so impressed with its validity and accuracy that he became a Christian. There are many other examples of this kind of reaction to studying how the Bible came together. It actually strengthened my faith quite a bit, so if you want a challenge, there it is--study how the Bible came together.

"Don't tell me that your version (well worn from vigorous thumping, I'm sure) is THE one to go with."

Don't tell me it's not. My point from that statement is that, as I pointed out earlier, we all necessarily "preach" our beliefs since we see them as true. I can't help it, and you can't help it. God's word is truth and you can't tell me not to proclaim it, and you contradict yourself in your attempts to shut up those who disagree with you.

"Don't ignore the myriad contradictions and mixed messages it conveys..."

Name one. There are no contradictions in the Bible, and although it has been attacked more than any other writing in history, it has stood the test of time. You have no warrants for any of your arguments. I'd gladly refute any specific claim.

"and don't twist what it does contain to suit your own purposes and advance a conservative agenda"

Again, no warrants for your accusation, but if you look up the verses I have quoted, they do say what I claim they say.

"It's an interesting book, full of good and inspirational insight, but it's a historical document and I will never accept the unbearable arrogance that one version is more rightous than another."

"Unbearable arrogance" most aptly describes your post. Your arrogance is also blind, in that you have made all kinds of unwarranted accusations and false statements not having studied anything you are pouncing.

"Supposedly, god made my brain and gave me common sense. Boith are totally offended by this. I guess the "devil" is causing that."

No, you are making your own choices. I think even people who side with you in your opinions about God and the Bible would mostly object to your post on the basis of its lack of merit.

The Bible says that its message, the gospel of Christ as Savior, is offensive to human nature (I Pet. 2:7-8, Romans 9:33).

"Good grief. Think for yourselves."

But you are doing so well at telling us all how to think:

"Treat people the way you want to be treated, live a good life, be tolerent, live and learn and use the gifts god gave you and keep an open mind."

This is the only place in the thread where someone has commanded everyone else how they must live.

"Otherwise, please shut the hell up with this hypocrisy."

Hopefully it is apparent who has demonstrated the hypocrisy.

"Your pal is worried about disrespecting his wife by looking at passing women?"

No. You said you read half the thread? Maybe reading the other half would enlighten you.

"So aggravating. I would never be found creating a thread here for an excuse to spout my own beliefs."

But you have passionately encroached upon another's to do that very thing.

"I'm responding to it like an idiot"

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Smiler, I do appreciate your response, but you filled it with an overwhelming sense of anger, dogma, hypocrisy, intolerance, and inaccurate information. All that I would ask is that you afford others the liberty you enjoy yourself. I think overall this thread contained engaging discussion with mutual respect shown despite many varying views, and I'm glad it's gone in the direction it did.

M

[Megenoita]

Well Emperor, I guess if I saw this post before I replied, I'd save myself some time [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

M