{ 53 } Comments

1. kimmy | June 17, 2006 at 4:41 am | Permalink

   This is too funny.
   In your area the religious people are trying to control bloggers.
   In NA the corporations are trying to control bloggers.
   Your religion is trying to control bloggers.
   Over here the Bush administration religion is trying to control bloggers. Read (big corporations).
   What the heck is the difference?
   This is a free country. You are free to do as you are told!
   Are you any better off?

2. Philip | June 17, 2006 at 5:14 am | Permalink

   Kimmy,
   Could you name the corporations in North America that are trying to control bloggers?
   Could you name what blogs in North America have been forced down?
   There are zillions of far-left, conspiracy theory-riddled blogs in the US, and no one is restricting them. There are blogs from every imaginable crackpot, pervert and junkie in the US, and they are published freely.
   Can you name a blog that has been forced down either by the US government, an individual state government or a corporation?
   Exceptions are blogs in legal trouble for libel, slander and similar situations.

3. kimmy | June 17, 2006 at 5:36 am | Permalink

   Philip,
   If you would follow the news instead of following your religion, you would know!
   "Keep the internet free!"
   Go to http://agonist.org/ and read!
   I mean "READ" and don't let your views get in your way.
   Just this once, try to understand how someone else thinks and try to accept them without your religious sermons!

4. Haitham | June 17, 2006 at 8:49 am | Permalink

   Kimmy,

   Just for clarification here, Egyptian official are not trying to control blogging out of any religious belief, but only political.

5. kimmy | June 17, 2006 at 9:02 am | Permalink

   Haitham,
   I am getting sick and tired of arguing with Philip.
   He is obviously tied in his ways.
   I am tied in my ways, but I am willing to listen.
   I don't wan't Philip banned.
   He just needs to understand that there are other beliefs than his own.

6. Philip | June 17, 2006 at 11:12 am | Permalink

   Kimmy,
   I know there are other beliefs. I have stated AD NAUSEAM that everyone is entitled to his/her beliefs. I have used Haitham as an example (hope you don't mind, H) stating that, based on what I have read, he believes Islam is the fulfillment of God's revelation. I believe that Jesus was the completion of it. And we are both entitled to believe what we do, and neither of us wishes to force the other to believe as the we do. There is nothing wrong with believing that your faith is the fulfillment of truth. There is beauty in that. If you accept all beliefs, as you claim to, then accept those of us who believe every word of those our faith is based upon. I believe every word Jesus spoke and should not be expected to do any differently. A Muslim who believes every word Mohammed spoke should not be expected to do any differently. Why should we? To make other people like us better? I have never said one denigrating word about Muslims here nor elsewhere. I have dialogued by email and in other venues with Iraqis and Jordanians, and one of each frequently. All of these are Muslims who know where I stand, and I know where they stand, and we are all cool with it. Why can't you be? The Iraqi and I share common ground politically. The Jordanian and I like the same music. We differ in faith, including our stances on absolute truth, yet we are friends on other levels.
   I followed the link and read. Okay, now what does that have to do with blog censorship?

   On Topic: I think blogging has been an amazing outlet for personal expression and debate. It's a tremendous way to gain firsthand information in the world. I have read a number of Iraqi blogs, varying from anti-US to ambivalent, to pro-US. All offer a unique and valuable perspective and help to give a well-rounded picture. I think it is doubly valuable in the Middle East, where freedom of speech is a little more scarce.

7. kimmy | June 19, 2006 at 9:06 am | Permalink

   Philip,
   I have a problem with you.
   You keep using your religion to answer your views.
   I am NOT religious. I am a NON believer.
   You keep using your views to tell Islam that they are wrong. I get upset.
   Your self centered views are very concerning to me.
   Islam is a very loving religion that has many plusses going for them.
   But you keep telling everyone that your religion is the right one.
   No religion is the right one.
   It may be my bias against religions. But you keep pushing your religion.
   Don't push and I may listen.

8. Philip | June 19, 2006 at 9:23 am | Permalink

   Kimmy,
   Did you not read a single word I wrote? So you just start typing just to see what comes up on screen when you stop? I have debated with Raymond, Robin, Thomas and others and, despite our vast differences, have generally found them engaging and willing to respond to me according to what I write and have even been able to neutralize some of my points (which is no small feat :-) ). Instead, you keep telling me that I hate Muslims and that I need to change my faith to suit your agenda. Frankly, it is getting irksome.
   I am sorry if I sound rude, but until you are willing to have a reasoned, rational debate, I will no longer respond to your comments.

9. kimmy | June 20, 2006 at 6:30 am | Permalink

   So I am wrong on this one.
   Sorry!
   But I am getting tired on many sites where Christianity IS THE TRUE RELIGION!
   At least here I hear some sort of sanity.
   Your plugging of Christianity is not the same plugging of the Muslim belief I get here.
   What I get here is a sane discussion of what is happening in the Middle East that should not happen in any civilized country.
   Bush is one of the main instigators of this conflict. He supports Israel in this conflict.
   Your constant references to your religion bothers me because you don't follow it up with how the Muslem faith is the same and a suffering people are killed every day!
   Bush is wrong! His support of Zionism is killing the people of Palestein.
   Just try to remember that I sit outside this religious debate and look at it as a non-believer.
   Killing is killing. No matter how you look at it, it is still wrong.
   And I think your picture is still looking down at me.
   Sorry, my viewpoint.

10. Philip | June 20, 2006 at 7:11 am | Permalink

    Very well, but I have not debated with any Muslim whether or not it is the true faith, or "a" true faith, or whatever else. I guarantee you, many Muslims here consider Islam to be THE true faith. And, despite my assertion that Christianity is, I am not at odds with them. I respect their right to believe in absolute truth (as I do) and that they have come to a different conclusion than I.
    The reason so many sites call Christianity the embodiment of truth is because the very one we worship says that it is (or, more accurately, that HE is). Mohammed refers to Islam as the true faith, as the fulfillment of true religion. So the orthodoxy for both faiths states that each is the true faith.
    You are an unbeliever, so you do not believe that either is true, or at least not exclusively. That, too, is your right, and you have the freewill to decide where you will stand while on this earth.
    I have stated that Israel has failed in many regards, especially their negligence when attacking terrorists, resulting in a striking amount of civilian death. I have also stated that groups like Hamas are no less guilty (perhaps more), in that they draw Israeli fire into civilian areas and very specifically and undebatedly seek the deaths of civilians.
    Bush supports a Palestinian state, unlike his predecessors. Is he using his bully pulpit enough when it comes to Israel? No, and I have openly criticized him for that. But according to the complete quote you gave me in another post, he said that he felt that God was telling him to help give the Palestinians a sovereign state. So clearly his religion, if it is, in fact, being infused here (though, again, former Prime Minister Abbas did not agree that he stated that God was telling him to invade Iraq and such), it is not being used as an act of hatred against Muslims. He has called Islam a "religion of peace" so many times that it has become a household term.
    Finally, if you feel I am looking down on you, I am sorry. I do not know what else I can do. Thomas is an atheist, yet I don't think he feels the same (if you read this, Thomas, feel free to correct me), and I jab at him all the time, halfway for the fun of it!
    Mainly, though, my point is that my faith is my faith, and it will not change to please others. If I practiced my faith to please people and not the very one I worship, then I would be wasting my time. And I will debate and discuss US policy, whether good or bad. I like Bush more than I dislike him. But as I posted a little earlier, I'd give him about 6.5 stars out of 10. That isn't too impressive.

11. ??????? | June 20, 2006 at 8:36 am | Permalink

    ????? ????? ????? ??????? ?????? ?? ??????? ????????

    ????? ????? ??????? ??????? ??????? ????? ???????? .. ????

    ?? ????? ????????? ???????? .. ????? ????? ??? ??? ?? ???? ??????

    ??? ????? ????? ???????? ?? ????? ?????

12. kimmy | June 23, 2006 at 8:05 am | Permalink

    Philip,
    Good argument.
    But you still have to remember that too many people have been killed because of religion.
    I really don't hate you, but you keep using your religion to further your causes.
    I have gone to Christian sites and they tell me that I have to convert.
    Here I have to just post and I am accepted.
    I believe that religion is the problem.

13. Thomas, a Dane | June 23, 2006 at 11:45 am | Permalink

    Philip,

    I don't feel you look down on me and I enjoy turning your words against you too :)

    You said: "Mainly, though, my point is that my faith is my faith, and it will not change to please others. If I practiced my faith to please people and not the very one I worship, then I would be wasting my time."

    Hmm, this seems to be an inviation for a bit of nitpicking!

    I thought the single main purpose of religious superstition was to provide guidelines for followers about how to live their lives in a society so that everybody would be pleased. I didn't know if was a knockout worship competition.

    You cannot prove that God exists, so wouldn't it make more sense for you to split your time evenly between pleasing people and the knockout worship competition?

    Consider this:

    Outcome 1: If, after all, God exists, then he will appreciate the way you played the worship game with half of your time, but there is also a decent chance that he will be pleased about you pleasing people. In the worst case scenario you would have wasted half your time. In the best case you would not have wasted any time at all.

    Outcome 2: If, after all, God does not exist, then you would maximum have wasted half your time on the worship competition instead of all your time.

    Of course there is the (for you, radical) alternative which is to decide that it is not important if there is a God or not. As an agnostic atheist I am not risking that I waste any of my time at all with the worship game, but I am still trying to please people. Not because I hope for a reward when I am dead and gone, but because it makes me fell good about mysself while I am living ;)

    As you know, I am not saying that religion is wrong, but if religious worship gets completely out of hand then it turns into a pathologic obsession with the question about what happens when we die and that is a serious obstacle to living while it is possible to live!

14. Robin | June 23, 2006 at 4:07 pm | Permalink

    Thomas,
    Out of all your brilliant posts that has GOT to be one of your best!! There is only one problem though, and it is a semantical problem. I think what you meant was not "pleasing people" but rather treating people with kindness, dignity and respect. Or in other words, treating people as "God" (if we do believe) would want us to treat them rather than spending all our time talking about him. But Philip is an adherent to Protestantism which has the doctrine of "Sola fide" which was THE break with the Church when Martin Luther came along. Sola fide (by faith alone), also historically known as the justification of faith, is a doctrine that distinguishes Protestant denominations from Catholicism, Eastern Christianity, and Restorationism in Christianity.

    "The doctrine of Sola Fide or Faith Alone asserts that it is on the basis of God's grace through the believer's faith alone that believers are forgiven their transgressions of the Law of God, rather than on the basis of any good works."

    It's just funny because a few days ago Philip told me he would be "toast" if he was going to be judged by his deeds. As I hope you understand, I couldn't care less what you believe, it is rather what kind of human being you are. And I am saying this from my "head" rather than my faith because I have believed this FOREVER, LONG LONG before I took up a particular religion. (In fact, I take this belief to the very very edge of what my "religion" allows, but since it is deeds, guess what? It all WORKS OUT! Religion IS bad if humanity is not the first priority) I'm not trying to elevate one faith over the other, I am really just trying to point out the number one basic tenet that sets Protestantism apart.

    So, just to make my point clear, your post is brilliant just because I agree with you :)

15. Robin | June 23, 2006 at 4:30 pm | Permalink

    Thomas—Just to add, it is NOT about how we are judged in the hereafter (if there is one) but rather how we are judged right here on earth by our fellow man. Have we done EVERYTHING within our means to treat our neighbors kindly? Basically, all we have for SURE is our lives as we know them so we better darn well be striving with all our might to be good decent human beings and put MUCH more time into that rather than worshipping the most unselfish "God" that I "personally" believe put us here on earth. Short, you CAN be a WONDERFUL human AND be totally accepted by our loving "God" without worshipping "God" in a relgious manner whatsoever. After all, we do what we are put on earth to do by our humanity to others rather than practicing religion as a contest of beliefs. Before I complicate the issue further, I think you know what I mean.

16. Thomas, a Dane | June 23, 2006 at 5:57 pm | Permalink

    Robin,

    I guess there are many forms of pleasing. Here are a few:

    The Bush form: Please give me your oil or I will find an excuse to invade you!
    The Cheney form: I am pleased with Haliburton's progress in reconstructing Iraq!
    The Clinton form: I am pleased by Monika!
    The royal form: The queen is pleased (opposite of: The queen is not amused!)
    The French form: If you pronounce please with a French accent, then it is the fabric of an under-skirt.
    The postal form: Please don't shoot the messenger!

    Come to think of it. I was supposedly born to be a Protestant (neat trick isn't it? They dip you in water and call you Christian before you are old enough to object!), but I have never heard of the Sola Fide thing before. Maybe because religion is not that big of a thing in Denmark or because Italy is at the other end of Europe!?!?

    By the way, is Sola Fide in any way related to Han Sola from Star Wars? Or the Italian egocentric, Oh Sola Mio?

    Sorry, my mind is drifting. The typical Friday thing :)

17. Philip | June 23, 2006 at 5:58 pm | Permalink

    Here's some clarification that should answer everyone:

    1) My faith is to please God, not man. What does that mean? It means to (duck, Kimmy, as I am quoting scripture) to "Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself." So what Thomas said about dividing time half and half doesn't fit, as this covers 100%. Paul also stated that true religion (which is faith in practice) is caring for "widows and orphans."
    2) The main purpose of "religious superstition" (good one, T) in the Christian sense is a personal relationship with God and reconciliation with him. "If" there is a God, it's more than obvious that we are all at odds with him! A purpose in the moral guidelines is promulgation of a just and civil society, but it is not the full purpose of the faith by any means. George Washington stated that it is necessary for a population to have sincere religious faith in order to govern themselves.
    3) I do not have to prove God exists. If I needed proof, the existence of my son from a wife who was rendered infertile by 3 different medical conditions simultaneously would do the trick, but I digress… I have experienced him enough times to know that I don't need a litmus test.
    4) There is no knockout religious competition. Drive for "converts" is motivated out of love and based on Jesus' words, both his claims to be the means to reconciliation with God and the Great Commission (command to go make "disciples" [followers] of all men). When that statement is misused and coercion is added, it is wrong. But Jesus was clear that coercion should never be used, only persuasion.
    5) Christian communities, including websites, will typically seek to persuade you to reconcile with God. And given that by our belief, Jesus provided the means to do so, it would seem rather cold to not make the offer available to non-believers (which we all were at some point). If you are offended (to use the old argument), don't go. No one is making you go there, and if you go and don't want to convert, then don't! I promise no one will pull you out of your home and have you beheaded for it. I promise.
    6) I would rather do good simply for the good it brings rather than making me feel good about myself. I want to please God through it, but out of love for my fellow man.
    7) The Protestant (or, more accurately, the Apostle Paul's) doctrine of justification through faith alone is not anti-works. That same belief follows up with the fact that faith without good works is dead, that we should put our faith to work in all aspects of our lives. But salvation is achieved through faith, because evil is not eliminated simply by making up for it with good works. The root of these beliefs are not Protestantism, but the writings of Paul and other early church leaders. Protestantism was a cry against the ritualism and legalism that had taken over at that point in history. Results? The Bible was made available to all, not just priests and those who knew Latin. No more hand wringing over whether works were up to speed to please God (how could they be?). So why would I be toast if works were the means to reconciliation with God? I'm a nice guy and have done a lot of nice things, been kind to my neighbor even to a fault, yadda yadda yadda. But I've screwed up a lot, too and will continue to until I die. So I'm glad there isn't some cosmic scale up there weighing it all out!
    8) Finally, yes, God does love all. But if I'm going to adhere to one faith, then I am not willing to have a smorgasbord version, where I pick the "nice" parts and reject those that make me uncomfortable.
    9) For a more philosophical breakdown of these beliefs, click here. The site is not overtly evangelical in nature, but even we make that offering. And guess what? We have fans from atheists to Muslims! One Muslim, in particular, I IM with often, and he knows where we stand, and he is not offended (and a bit curious). When he gets to move to the US, he'll probably come see some of our shows, and most of the performers will hold a Christian worldview (although we don't have any preaching at our events). I'm no bigger a fan of people with signs scribbled in Middle English and yelling through bullhorns. I frankly consider them to be morons. But that doesn't mean Christians have to reject Jesus' teachings, either.
    10) FInally, adherents to faiths should not be afraid to elevate theirs over others. There is a reason you choose to believe someone, whether it be Jesus, Mohammed or whoever. Be true to your faith, and honor the one you worship (or don't). Thomas (or Kimmy), call atheism superior. If you did not believe it to be so, you would not be one. Haitham, call Islam superior. I, for one, will do the same with Christianity. And yet … we can all do so without destroying each other! Amazing!

18. Robin | June 23, 2006 at 6:30 pm | Permalink

    Maybe, just MAYBE it is possible (as I believe) that there are MANY paths to worship God and that NONE is the right one over the other AND that not worshipping AT ALL in a religious manner is STILL possible as a means of worshipping our creator. The "God"
    I have chosen to believe in is the MOST unselfish God that is ONLY obtainable by finding him in our hearts rather than in religion. Just to toss in my all time Bible quote, Jesus said,
    Luke 17:21 "Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you" It is what is in our HEARTS and our FULL acceptance of our fellow man as ALL creatures of "God" REGARDLESS of belief. Once again, I can give anyone a number to call if they think I should be excommunicated :)

    Thomas, Catholics baptise shortly after birth but most Protestant sects want their adherants to be of the "age of acceptance" rather than baptizing them before they know what they are doing. Baptising is a VERY complicated issue, but in the past Catholics believed that an infant HAD to be baptised in case they died and went into "limbo" instead of straight to heaven as innocents. Don't laugh and say you are picturing people bending over backwards to duck under a pole. "Limbo" is being phased out THANK GOD because it is just ONE of the many crazy beliefs left over in the Church. As rational human beings, having been given "freedom of thought" then I also believe it is up to every "rational human being" to realize that the specifics of their faith are NOT the end-all to worship. The whole irony is that every faith says that God always existed so OBVIOUSLY he existed LONG before MAN tried to "capture him" in religion.

19. Robin | June 23, 2006 at 8:47 pm | Permalink

    For Philip:
    1) "Paul also stated that true religion (which is faith in practice) is caring for ?widows and orphans.? Is that widows and orphans of ANY faith? OR, is your caring for them also attached to listening to your own religious convictions because Christ also taught us to be "fishers of men"? EVERY SINGLE Christian based charity out there is tied to religious prostelyzing which offers Christianity as the "one true religion" You get food and medicine, you ALSO get a good helping of Jesus with it.
    2) " A purpose in the moral guidelines is promulgation of a just and civil society, but it is not the full purpose of the faith"
    No it is NOT a full purpose of the Christian faith. The rest of the "purpose" is to convert others so that they might be given the keys to heaven also.
    3) I need no need to prove the existance of God either. But life in ANY form of ANY belief is existance enough for me. I have no need for any personal miracles or the knowledge of alleged other miracles beyond simple existance. I also do not have any driving need for ANYONE to believe as I do, but I will share it in hopes to make people feel comfortable that I am not coming from a religious belief that might judge them in any manner.
    4) " But Jesus was clear that coercion should never be used, only persuasion." The mere fact that MEN wrote that the only way to God is through Jesus is CERTAINLY coersion enough.
    5) "5) Christian communities, including websites, will typically seek to persuade you to reconcile with God" Reconcile THEIR WAY, and yes even I as a Christian myself am offended by this.
    6) " I would rather do good simply for the good it brings rather than making me feel good about myself." Doing good for others brings peace to our own hearts and therefor communion with our creator.
    7) " But salvation is achieved through faith, because evil is not eliminated simply by making up for it with good works." Evil does NOT create good works in the first place and CANNOT. What the heck "evil" are you referring to? A belief in religion other than your own? Or are you talking about a religious hypocrite? In that case, it is the one SAYING they are the true believers but acting dispicably which is NOT doing good deeds. NO ONE is weighing your good deeds on a scale. Your good deeds are SUPPOSED to be a reflection of your faith, but faith alone is NO going to cut it!! This is called religious hypocracy.
    8) Who said you have to pick from a "smorgasboard"? I for one am saying I am TIRED of hearing you say Christianity is the one true faith. I know what you believe and it puts others at a DISTINCT disadvantage from your righteous perch.
    9) "But that doesn?t mean Christians have to reject Jesus? teachings, either." NO ONE is asking you to reject Jesus, "I"
    am asking you to realize that you are offensive in your claim to the "truth" in your narrow definition of it which rejects all other "truths" as not equal to your own and in fact, just plain WRONG!
    10) "Finally, adherents to faiths should not be afraid to elevate theirs over others. There is a reason you choose to believe someone, whether it be Jesus, Mohammed or whoever. Be true to your faith, and honor the one you worship (or don?t). Thomas (or Kimmy), call atheism superior. If you did not believe it to be so, you would not be one. Haitham, call Islam superior. I, for one, will do the same with Christianity. And yet ? we can all do so without destroying each other! Amazing!" This is a TOTALLY contradictory statement to itself from start to finish. NO SINGLE PARTY CAN CALL THEMSELVES SUPERIOR WITHOUT THE OTHER PARTY SUBSEQUENTLY BEING INFERIOR AND AT ODDS! We are ALL creatures created by WHATEVER force had a hand in our creation and put on this earth to LOVE and RESPECT eachother WITHOUT claims of superiority. The BEST thing about atheism IS that it leaves religion out of the picture and accepts all human beings
    as HUMANS put on this earth to HOPEFULLY strive for good.

    There Philip, now that I have come out of the box and stopped pussy-footing around with you about your continued Christian testimony to us, MAYBE, just MAYBE you will understand that people get offended by it, I for one included. I would say this to you anywhere on the street that we should meet and I have said words similar to this to others who have continued to try to tell me these things. I am not only offended for myself, I am offended for every single friend and loved one of different faiths that this is said to. So if you REALLY care even a little smidgeon about how you affect others then you will cease and desist with the "one true belief" statements altogether.

20. Philip | June 24, 2006 at 5:28 am | Permalink

    Robin,
    Here are some answers first, then I will ask some provocative questions (excited?):

    1) ?Paul also stated that true religion (which is faith in practice) is caring for ?widows and orphans.? Is that widows and orphans of ANY faith? OR, is your caring for them also attached to listening to your own religious convictions because Christ also taught us to be ?fishers of men?? EVERY SINGLE Christian based charity out there is tied to religious prostelyzing which offers Christianity as the ?one true religion? You get food and medicine, you ALSO get a good helping of Jesus with it.
    It means all people, and that in doing so, you show the love of Christ. If you are going to show the love of Christ, it would be rather unloving to keep his truth from them, however. You continue to care for them regardless of their willingness to follow him, but you keep the full word, which is to provide physical needs as well as spiritual ones.

    2) ? A purpose in the moral guidelines is promulgation of a just and civil society, but it is not the full purpose of the faith?
    No it is NOT a full purpose of the Christian faith. The rest of the ?purpose? is to convert others so that they might be given the keys to heaven also.
    This is true, except for the use of the phrase "the rest." Actually, the faith has many facets. However, there is a reason Jesus' last comman before his final ascension was to spread his word.

    3) I also do not have any driving need for ANYONE to believe as I do, but I will share it in hopes to make people feel comfortable that I am not coming from a religious belief that might judge them in any manner.
    Neither do I, by your wording. I have no need period for anyone to believe as I do. Evangelism has nothing to do with meeting one's own needs.

    4) ? But Jesus was clear that coercion should never be used, only persuasion.? The mere fact that MEN wrote that the only way to God is through Jesus is CERTAINLY coersion enough.
    If you believe the Bible is the work of men and not God, then why be a Christian? More on this later…

    5) Christian communities, including websites, will typically seek to persuade you to reconcile with God? Reconcile THEIR WAY, and yes even I as a Christian myself am offended by this.
    Re: #4

    6) ? I would rather do good simply for the good it brings rather than making me feel good about myself.? Doing good for others brings peace to our own hearts and therefor communion with our creator.
    No argument here, per se. My basis is intent rather than results,

    7) Evil does NOT create good works in the first place and CANNOT. What the heck ?evil? are you referring to? A belief in religion other than your own? Or are you talking about a religious hypocrite? In that case, it is the one SAYING they are the true believers but acting dispicably which is NOT doing good deeds. NO ONE is weighing your good deeds on a scale. Your good deeds are SUPPOSED to be a reflection of your faith, but faith alone is NO going to cut it!! This is called religious hypocracy.
    By 'evil' I mean sin, avoiding the use of 'Christianse.' Evil means wrong behaviors: acting out in anger, lying, stealing, adultery, etc. Again, justification by faith is central to Jesus' teachings and brought into the forefront by Paul when other Christians were replacing faith with ritual.

    8) Who said you have to pick from a ?smorgasboard?? I for one am saying I am TIRED of hearing you say Christianity is the one true faith. I know what you believe and it puts others at a DISTINCT disadvantage from your righteous perch.
    I am not calling myself righteous. I am calling Jesus righteous. I can either choose to disbelieve him or believe him. I choose to believe him. There are Muslims here who believe Islam is the one true faith. That does not offend me. I rather admire it, because at least they believe in truth.

    9) ?But that doesn?t mean Christians have to reject Jesus? teachings, either.? NO ONE is asking you to reject Jesus, ?I?
    am asking you to realize that you are offensive in your claim to the ?truth? in your narrow definition of it which rejects all other ?truths? as not equal to your own and in fact, just plain WRONG!
    Re: #4

    10) This is a TOTALLY contradictory statement to itself from start to finish. NO SINGLE PARTY CAN CALL THEMSELVES SUPERIOR WITHOUT THE OTHER PARTY SUBSEQUENTLY BEING INFERIOR AND AT ODDS! We are ALL creatures created by WHATEVER force had a hand in our creation and put on this earth to LOVE and RESPECT eachother WITHOUT claims of superiority. The BEST thing about atheism IS that it leaves religion out of the picture and accepts all human beings
    as HUMANS put on this earth to HOPEFULLY strive for good.
    If a Muslim calls Islam superior, he considers Christianity to be inferior. That is his decision. To believe in truth means to be at odds with someone. So what? Does everyone have to agree with everyone else to be at peace with one another? It's silly. If I am wrong about what the truth really is, then so be it. But if everything is true (even when things greatly conflict), then logic and rational thought must be thrown out the window. And all belief, too, because then what is the point? Which brings me to my provocative questions:

    1) If you do not believe Jesus' words, why do you choose to be a Christian?

    2) Who do you believe Jesus is/was if his words are false? For example, you claim implicitly that one of his most famous statements is false: "I am the Way, the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father except through me." Was he lying, or was he just a little bit nuts? Or did someone else make it up?

    3) Follow up to #2: Then why be Christian, Catholic, whatever? What value is Jesus if he is only a deceiver, a nutjob or a creation of fiction writers (who were willing to be tortured and killed for what they wrote)?

    Recently the Episcopal church met and refused to affirm Christ as the means to salvation. A friend of mine sent the article around to a few folks. The most interesting response was from a liberal, lesbian, Jewish woman: "I actually agree with you, B—–. ALthough I'm Jewish, if you don't believe that Christ is the way to salvation, why believe at all?" It is such simple logic. She is none of what I am: conservative, heterosexual, Christian. And you know what? She is NOT offended by the belief that Jesus is the means to salvation. She does not believe it, of course, but she doesn't get her panties in a wad because others do. So you point your finger at me claiming that my beliefs are wrong, even while telling me that no one can call another's beliefs wrong! Do you see the dizzying anti-logic there? The idea that anyone can hear someone make a claim of truth and then get all out of sorts about it is absurd. Good heavens, given that I believe that Jesus' words are the fulfillment of truth, shouldn't I be the one who freaks out when others claim to know the truth? *shrug*

    A final Christian-specific note: To claim that all beliefs are true and that any path to God is equal negates the suffering of Jesus on the cross. It reduces it to another neat way to know God. Dang, he should've just saved himself some agony and let the other means do the trick! Instead of praying for "the cup to pass" from his hands, he should've gotten up and said, "Screw this! It's back to the carpenter shop for me!" And if you really believe he rose from the dead…then there must be something to the guy. Or maybe that is a fairy tale, too?

    Now, to sum it all up: I have made no Christian testimony. I have debated others, because they have challenged my beliefs. And if I am challenged, I will respond, at least until I decide to mosey on and get some work done! Tell me that I am wrong for believing that anything is wrong (again, that dizzying anti-logic), and I will assert my right to believe as I choose. I can envision a day where instead of religious fanatics forcing beliefs on others, those who dare to believe in absolute truth are sent to the gallows. The vitriol I have seen in response to it is evidence enough. If you are offended by my beliefs, don't call me on them. Kimmy, this goes for you, too, Bud. I kept a low profile on that end here until comments were made that belief in one truth is unacceptable. I am not just defending Christians here, but Muslims and Jews as well who may believe that their faith holds the keys to eternal truth.

    But as I said before, I'm happy to discuss issues without any reference to absolute truth. If you don't read to hear it, don't provoke a response. And anyone who is offended that others believe as I do: get over it. If you accept all beliefs as equal, then accept mine and quit whining about the fact that what some guy in Florida isn't willing to join your club.

21. Robin | June 24, 2006 at 7:42 am | Permalink

    Philip,
    My personal unique relationship with God is none of your business. I only wish you felt the same about yours. I have known people from just about every faith out there and NONE of them go on about their religion like you and others like you do.
    So since you stated "I?m happy to discuss issues without any reference to absolute truth" I would like to hold you to your word. And also please, statements such as these " I can envision a day where instead of religious fanatics forcing beliefs on others, those who dare to believe in absolute truth are sent to the gallows" should be left on the cutting room floor. In a world of tolerance and true acceptance of each other (which if you listened at all to what some of us are trying to say,) a repeat of the Christians being eaten by lions would never occur. But also in a world of complete tolerance NO individuals would be prostelyzing to believers of another faith because to do so shows little respect for their "truth".
    With that I tell you I am not going to discuss this issue again with you because it is going nowhere and I don't wish to take up another line on this blog about it out of respect to you and your beliefs which I have no desire to change and also to the blog itself.

22. kimmy | June 24, 2006 at 7:59 am | Permalink

    Phlip,
    I am sorry but I have had a very bad week, (maybe two or three).
    I have lost members of my family.
    My cat-in-law helped me to break a toe. It really hurts.
    I have been miserable and hated everyone I have been in contact with.
    If you would have known what I have gone through these last few months you would understand.
    Sorry. But it has been a really bad time.
    Sorry, if I took it out on you.
    I don't hate you. I only got angry because my fuse was very short.
    Again I apologise. Sorry.

23. Robin | June 24, 2006 at 8:22 am | Permalink

    Kimmy,
    I've had a broken toe too and it hurts like heck. I'm very sorry to hear you are having such a hard time with all these problems. Thoughts of comfort go north to you. (hitch-hiking in the heart)

24. Philip | June 24, 2006 at 8:28 am | Permalink

    Kimmy,
    No problem; I understand! Losing a family member is extremely difficult (I lost a favorite uncle a year ago today), and nothing makes the nerves more raw than that emptiness. Add in a toe injury (aren't those kinds of things the worst?), and I can see how a fuse gets very short. Your apology is fully accepted. Perhaps if I had known the kind of crap you were dealing with, I would have gone easier on you! ;-) I don't consider you a bad person, of course. We just have some fundamental disagreements, and that is where debate stems from. But without debate, there is only consensus, and though consensus on the surface seems good, it rarely is. So don't take any debating I do as lashing out in anger. I have never walked away from any comment angry. I debate some associates via email regularly (2 conservatives, 3 liberals), and we eat each other like cheeseburgers one day and then share a good laugh the next. And if you think I'm trouble on the religious front, you should see the other conservative in our circle! But it's all worthwhile discourse, so realize I take the same attitude here.

    Robin,
    I will leave this discussion, too, with one final note: In a world of tolerance, there is room for all views, including those who believe in absolute truth. Tolerance includes the open expression of faith, the sharing of one's faith with another, non-coercive persuasion (and with it the right to accept or reject) and the full practice of any faith (barring the obvious, like human sacrifice).
    Oh, and I don't consider you to be bad, either! :-)

    Thomas,
    You're a little bad, but that's ok. ;-) By the way, I think I caught you lurking at Deathway…

25. Robin | June 24, 2006 at 9:00 am | Permalink

    You're not "bad" Philip, you're just annoying :) but since I have three daughters I have learned how to cope with annoyance!
    (Well, most of the time)
    I checked out your site too, even your business site, the whole thing and you didn't catch me!!! LOLOLOL I came in on little cat feet. Woops, don't trip and break your toe! It can make ANYONE cranky.

    Kimmy, more thoughts going northward. (Along with a few of our AWOL soldiers)

26. Robin | June 24, 2006 at 9:38 am | Permalink

    Kimmy,
    Was it your uncle who died who has been sick with throat cancer?
    I also hope very much you have been able to see your grandchildren. Whatever the case may be my heart goes out to you and I really hope you have much better times from here on. I can completely relate to the "all at once" feeling. It becomes so very sad and it just doesn't seem right! More thoughts of comfort from the "kitchen".

27. kimmy | June 25, 2006 at 2:25 am | Permalink

    To add a painful laugh to my broken toe.
    I was at a customers house where they had an uncontrollable son.
    He asked me why I was limping. I told him. He said "This foot?" as he stomped on my foot. I reacted with a quick punch (very not my style, I hate violence) and knocked him out. I you ever saw me you would wonder how I did it. I told his parents and they were upset over what he did. I should note that he is 5" taller than me and lifts weights. I don't do any exercise. He beats me by at least 100 LBS.
    How I did it is training by my still living uncle who trained the UDT years ago.
    The other day they called me and thanked me because he now listens to them.
    They paid their bill with a substantial bonus.
    I guess pain pays off in excercise and work!

28. kimmy | June 25, 2006 at 4:58 am | Permalink

    Robin,
    No I haven't been able to see my grandchildren.
    I have built a really dislike for my son-in-law.
    He is still stuck to his mothers tit.
    Sorry but that is the problem.

29. Philip | June 25, 2006 at 4:59 am | Permalink

    Actually, Robin, I caught you easily. Someone somewhere in California visited with Sabbah's blog as the referring link! The same person went to my business site (June 5, I think). I have a stat counter. It doesn't actually identify visitors, but it reads their location, ISP, where they linked from, etc. So you are tagged! :-D
    The assumed Thomas visited from Hungary, but some of the stats were unavailable, including referring link ( >:-( ) Of course, we do have visitors from elsewhere, the last few weeks being:
    73.68% United States
    5.26% Canada
    3.95% Hungary
    3.95% Mexico
    2.63% Portugal
    2.63% Israel
    1.32% Croatia
    1.32% Bolivia
    1.32% United Arab Emirates
    1.32% Switzerland
    1.32% Singapore
    1.32% Netherlands
    Actually, Robin, I caught you easily. Someone somewhere in California visited with Sabbah's blog as the referring link! The same person went to my business site (June 5, I think). I have a stat counter. It doesn't actually identify visitors, but it reads their location, ISP, where they linked from, etc. So you are tagged! :-D
    The assumed Thomas visited from Hungary, but some of the stats were unavailable, including referring link ( >:-( ) Of course, we do have visitors from elsewhere, the last few weeks being:
    73.68% United States
    5.26% Canada
    3.95% Hungary
    3.95% Mexico
    2.63% Portugal
    2.63% Israel
    1.32% Croatia
    1.32% Bolivia
    1.32% United Arab Emirates
    1.32% Switzerland
    1.32% Singapore
    1.32% Netherlands

    Funny thing about Deathway … the people we freak out the most are conservative Christians! Does that make me an equal opportunity annoyer?

30. Philip | June 25, 2006 at 5:04 am | Permalink

    Kimmy,
    NOW you're talking! You're earning my respect more and more! ;-)
    Seriously, a kid that out of control needed something to jolt him out of his invincibility complex. You may have just opened up a can of exactly what he needed! :-D :-D :-D
    I was about to paste this when I read your new post. A man not being able to break away from his parents (same goes for a woman, too) is a terrible thing to behold. It's especially terrible for his wife. I've seen it, and unless some boundaries get set, things just get worse and worse, and the wife ends up being a distant second to the man's childhood family instead of #1 where she belongs.

31. Philip | June 25, 2006 at 5:06 am | Permalink

    Robin,
    Oops, sorry about that last post. I went to paste that last sentence, and I repasted everything else, too! It's the quesadillas talking. And that funny combination of characters in the Thomas part was supposed to be a mad face. Oh well.

32. Robin | June 25, 2006 at 6:06 am | Permalink

    Philip,
    Cifornia is a BIIIIIIIIIIIIG state. Catch me if you can I'm the gingerbread man!!! (just kidding :) )

33. kimmy | June 25, 2006 at 6:25 am | Permalink

    Philip I don't need support. I need someone who can kick my son-in-law in the nuts.
    Long story short, he is rude, self centred and anti-social!

34. Philip | June 25, 2006 at 6:42 am | Permalink

    Robin,
    The suspected Cali visitor is registering as being alongside a winding waterway, but is likely more a town whose name bears some similarity to the chipping of wood into shapes. I'm still particularly proud that we once got a visitor from the Republic of Moldova.
    Funny you did the Gingerbread Man thing, That's my son's favorite book of the moment (he's 2)!

    Kimmy,
    I don't doubt it! I know the type.

35. kimmy | June 25, 2006 at 6:44 am | Permalink

    Philip,
    What ever happened to God is all forgiven.

36. Robin | June 25, 2006 at 7:30 am | Permalink

    Kimmy,
    It sounds like you had a run in with Baby Huey on crack! I laughed so hard when I read what you did my 16 year old came running down from upstairs to see what I was roaring about. But I think Baby Huey owes you a WHOLE lot more than a bonus from his parents. Perhaps HE could help you out with you son-in-law-who's-stuck-to his-mama's-tit!! He sounds like one BIG JERK. But it doesn't help much calling him names because I'm sorry you are hurting over his control-freak-rude-anti-social behavior. I've seen things with others I know and it is a really abusive thing to use children as a means of hurting someone else. I WILL keep sending you good thoughts so reach up and catch them cause they're flying in fast.

    Philip,
    EEEEEEE, I'm halfway eaten and having to play Password with barely my head and shoulders left. Check business email

37. kimmy | June 26, 2006 at 3:33 am | Permalink

    Philip,
    Wife is not #1. Husband is not #1.
    Husband and wife are equal. That is why Penny and I are still married after 33 years.
    We discuss everything.
    We have our arguments but we are equal. That is the most important thing.
    With a wife of 6' and me being only 5'10" we still accept our views even though they conflict.
    BTW I am lying about my height.
    Penny is becoming religious. I am becoming less religious.
    I still love my wife and she still loves me.
    We do this with understanding of each other and a mutual love.
    Religion is not a part of the equasion.
    Bottom line.
    WE LOVE EACH OTHER.
    I could not imagine a life without my wife!
    Where does your religion fit into this?
    How can you justify an atheist married to a Christian who love each other?
    My wife is leaning towards Christianity because of the loss of her mother.
    My oldest daughter is becoming religious because of events in her life.
    I accept that.
    She is now telling me that the church is the biggest problem affecting her views.
    She believes but the church is using its powers to control money and views.
    My daughters views is that the church is in your heart.
    My views are in my heart!
    Both of us agree that the church is in it for the money.

38. Robin | June 26, 2006 at 3:44 am | Permalink

    Kimmy,
    My husband is an atheist so we have the same mix. It works because you respect and love each other. It's so simple yet SO difficult for some to even fathom.

39. Philip | June 26, 2006 at 4:57 am | Permalink

    Kimmy,
    My reference to the wife being #1 is that is who she should be to her husband. Of course, the husband should be #1 to his wife as well. It fits into my faith (I avoid the word religion for more reasons than I can count) quite well, as the Christian biblical standard is mutual submission. There has been misunderstanding of the man's role as leader. Rather, the notion of leader, as described biblically, is that the man sacrifices himself as Christi did for the Church. In other words, he gives himself over fully. While Jesus came as a leader, he did so as a servant, beautifully described when he took on the symbolic role of servant and washed the feet of his followers using his own garment. So when I say my wife is #1, it means she gets all of me. No other woman has rights to my eyes, my mind, nor my body (sorry, ladies! :-D ). The only way I lead is providing an example of servanthood. Otherwise, we are both leaders of the family as parents and we are totally equal in every regard (although she gets the added benefit of protection, although admittedly she is a better shot than I am with a revolver).
    Your daughter is correct when she says that the church is in your heart. Jesus said almost word for word the same thing. What are known as "churches" are groups who meet together for companionship, teaching, support, etc. Like any organization, this is subject to misuse. Currently many Christians are trying to deconstruct the organizational sense and fall back into more of a New Testament style of worship, but it is difficult. It becomes cliquish by nature, and again, it is human nature. The church is made up of humans, and we are all corrupt to some degree or other, so the results will never be perfect. I do not mourn the imperfection, though, because without it, we would be inaccessible.

40. Philip | June 26, 2006 at 4:57 am | Permalink

    Kimmy,
    My reference to the wife being #1 is that is who she should be to her husband. Of course, the husband should be #1 to his wife as well. It fits into my faith (I avoid the word religion for more reasons than I can count) quite well, as the Christian biblical standard is mutual submission. There has been misunderstanding of the man's role as leader. Rather, the notion of leader, as described biblically, is that the man sacrifices himself as Christi did for the Church. In other words, he gives himself over fully. While Jesus came as a leader, he did so as a servant, beautifully described when he took on the symbolic role of servant and washed the feet of his followers using his own garment. So when I say my wife is #1, it means she gets all of me. No other woman has rights to my eyes, my mind, nor my body (sorry, ladies! :-D ). The only way I lead is providing an example of servanthood. Otherwise, we are both leaders of the family as parents and we are totally equal in every regard (although she gets the added benefit of protection, although admittedly she is a better shot than I am with a revolver).
    Your daughter is correct when she says that the church is in your heart. Jesus said almost word for word the same thing. What are known as "churches" are groups who meet together for companionship, teaching, support, etc. Like any organization, this is subject to misuse. Currently many Christians are trying to deconstruct the organizational sense and fall back into more of a New Testament style of worship, but it is difficult. It becomes cliquish by nature, and again, it is human nature. The church is made up of humans, and we are all corrupt to some degree or other, so the results will never be perfect. I do not mourn the imperfection, though, because without it, we would be inaccessible.

41. Philip | June 26, 2006 at 4:58 am | Permalink

    Dang thing posted twice.

42. kimmy | June 26, 2006 at 8:53 am | Permalink

    Philip, You Said Jesus was a leader. What I remember from the bible was that Jesus guided us in the right direction, He never led us.
    Which is what both the Bible and the Koran are telling us!
    Am I wrong? I still see both religions as a strong self support system.

43. Thomas, a Dane | June 26, 2006 at 2:09 pm | Permalink

    Philip,

    I did visit your site (how would I know if I liked it or not if I had not seen it?), but my visit did not make me want to convert, support, or subscribe to anything.

    I pull out from discussions when you or anybody starts rambling about scriptures and quoting Jesus' assistants, because discussing what Peter said to Paul in chapter 6 of the Bible makes just as little sense to me as discussing what Donald Duck said to Scrooge McDuck on page 4 of Donald Duck issue 12 from 1976. I consider both to be works of fiction ;)

    I welcome discussion about whether particular concepts in the Bible (or concepts from any other 'book club') would be good or bad for society and whether it would make the world a better place if everybody subscribed to such concept. But discussing the whole package in its entirety to find the truth would be pointless.

    Using the word truth and the Bible in the same sentence (without negation) is without merits. There is plenty of scientific evidence proving that the Bible cannot be the truth. But it would be a pointless discussion as you have decided that a stong belief in that something is true is sufficient evidence, while I have accepted that there is sufficient scientific evidence to prove that it cannot be the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

    PS: I recommend that you increase the contrast between background and text on your website for better readability and that you make it easier to find 'about us' information.

44. Robin | June 26, 2006 at 4:07 pm | Permalink

    Hey Guys,
    Just want to share a little experience I had yesterday at a three-year old's birthday party. (I'm not trying to change the subject because it DOES fit within this general topic). One of my best friends adopted a little safe-haven bady which had been abandoned on a conveyor belt outside a local hospital. The little girl is very-muched loved by a whole lot of people and has a whole lot of physical (not mental) problems with one major operation down to straighten her spine to many more in the future. My girl-friends family are all BIG-TIME into a fundamentalist church and many of them hail from Oklahoma. There were about 80 people there but I was one of the few non-relatives. OK, you'e getting the picture I hope. Several of them had just been baptised in a mass baptism the day before at the beach which was part of the conversation. But the rest of the conversation as I worked my way around to different circles was tinged alot with "politics" and Jesus. You guys know me pretty well right now and could only imagine how uncomfortable I was as I heard about some of their trips to the "Holy Land" and Jesus this and Jesus that. Then came the politics. One guy had worked for Union Carbide and went on and on about how those third-world Indians just didn't appreciate anything UC had done for them after Bopal. Then came of course the Iraq situation. Those people over there don't appreciate ANYTHING we have done for them. The media here is slanted and just wants to talk about the bad news when every good Christian patriotic American knows we went in there for their own good. On and on, you pretty much know the mind-set. One woman in particular just could not stop telling anyone who would listen to her about eating "hummus" in Israel. Some people liked it some didn't. Oh know she said, the hummus in Israel just tastes better for some reason. Why am I sharing this with you guys? It's because ALL I could think about as I kept my mouth shut was that I could come back here and talk to some sane people!!! I had the WORST headache when I came home that I went to bed at 6:30. So I just wanted to thank you guys for all the intelligent conversation. You all make me laugh, and you all are really smart people. Sooooooo, THANKS! (I'm in one of my mushy moods I guess :) )

45. Robin | June 26, 2006 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

    I left one thing out about the "hummus" lady. She was telling everyone that they ought to "venture out" and try to eat at a Middle Eastern restaurant sometime. "You have to be careful though" she said "and try to pick an Israeli restaurant" (!!!!)
    because she's tasted hummus at an Arabic restaurant and the Arabs just DON'T know how to make good hummus. Hardly a single listener had any desire to eat at an A-Rab restaurant anyways!! It was ALL I could do to not say something to this ignorant woman as she kept repeating herself ad nauseum about "hummus in Israel". I distracted myself from my ire to a good degree by looking at all the tattoos on the men there and concentrating on the purpose of the gathering, a three-year-old's birthday party! I'm no ninny but I wasn't about to make a scene or say anything to my girl friends family on her daughter's very special day. It would NOT have made a single bit of difference anyways. Oh my GOD!!! Thank You, Thank You for Sabbah's Blog!!

46. Philip | June 26, 2006 at 10:41 pm | Permalink

    Thomas,
    By "lurking," I meant "visiting." My stat counter picked up on a visitor from Hungary.
    It's not designed to convert people, but the option if given. It's more as a place to open dialogue and do some good reviews and interviews. Well, that is if you like hard and indie music and such. I actually may change all text to white on there, for people with a lower contrast setting on their monitors. It's a side thing, so I rarely get around to working on it beyond updates to interviews and such. I have been supposed to interview a guy from Social Distortion for weeks and never can seem to get around to it.
    The ins and outs of the faith kind of grew here as a little debate blossomed, so of course it probably doesn't really inspire you much, ya' dang heathen! ;-)

    Kimmy,
    I agree with you enough on your statement to give it a nod!

    Robin,
    What you're supposed to do is steer the conversation toward which rifle is best at felling a buck.
    Although, truth be told, no hummus will ever compare to fried catfish! Mmm-mmm-mmmm!!!! ;-)

47. Robin | June 27, 2006 at 3:54 am | Permalink

    Philip,
    Surely you jest!! Although I have target shot in the past, LONG ago as a teenager, I would NEVER EVER in a million years shoot a living animal. Certainly not a deer!! They are my favorite wildlife. I actually drive out of my way to go to the huge cemetary here in my town just to see the deer that walk around there. My kids think I'm bonkers. There is a saying in Arabic,
    (excuse my spelling) Iyoon mithilin gazelle. It means your eyes are like a gazelle's eyes, (beautiful) Very similar to the term "doe-eyed" in English which also refers to big beautiful totally innocent eyes. And just remember, I'm a Southern girl too straight out of East Texas so fried catfish AND hummus sounds REALLY good to me. But believe me, these rednecks at the party I am sure have their heads on the walls (just like all my uncles and cousins!!) If they started talking about felling bucks it would have been more easy for me to take though than the "hummus lady" for sure.

48. Philip | June 27, 2006 at 5:01 am | Permalink

    Joking! Joking! I did go deer hunting once when I was pretty young (8 maybe?). I had to get up at 4am and sit miserably in the cold air on the tailgate of a pickup truck for hours. Once in the course of the increasingly tedious day, one apparently raced by. My dad jumped up, fired a few times, and sat back down. "Missed." A few more long hours passed, and we went home. I've never been one for shooting animal. Except snakes. I shot one in our back yard a month or so back and was disappointed to find it was a harmless oak snake. The thing was 5 feet long! I mistook it for a moccasin and didn't care to get too close to verify. I have a 2 year old son, and the way I see it is that snakes are expendable; he is not. A couple of years back I did shoot a real moccasin, so I feel vindicated. Besides, we have rattlesnakes here that will overturn a car, so I keep prepared. But deer? Nah. Leave 'em be. Besides, venison tastes butt nasty if you ask me.
    Oh, and to clarify, I'm not putting down hummus. I've never eaten it, but the ingredients don't agree with my palate. I don't like any dips, I don't like garbanzos, and I don't like

49. Philip | June 27, 2006 at 5:02 am | Permalink

    …much of any kond of bean nor pea.

50. kimmy | June 27, 2006 at 7:17 am | Permalink

    Talking about widows and orphans.
    I have a widows run.
    I go to many widows places and I check out their heating systems.
    I have one widow where I drive her to London for her half yearly run. She goes shopping for her 6 Month supplies.
    I charge her the same as anyone else. One hour!
    For one reason. My father is 88 and living in Kitchener.
    If I treat these people I can hope someone else will treat my father the same.

51. kimmy | June 29, 2006 at 5:52 am | Permalink

    Hunting,
    I used to hunt. I always got what I hunted for.
    I had an old 44-40 Winchester and I loaded my own shot.
    A great friend of mine wanted my gun because it was a collector piece.
    Last hunting trip with this gun I saw an incredible buck, (worthy of trophy size) and I couldn't pull the trigger.
    I gave the gun away and everything.
    I still love meat, but I can't kill it.
    This is why I hate the killing of anyone!

52. Robin | June 29, 2006 at 5:17 pm | Permalink

    Kimmy,
    Over there somewhere I saw you said your grandmother changed her name to Pedersen. My maiden name was Petersen, one letter difference. That is so wierd!! I think we're related some how :) Actually, it's about the only semi-normal thing I can write on this entire blog considering the absolutely surreal circumstances in the world right now. I think I'm living in some kind of nightmare world where nothing makes sense. NOTHING. So if we are related, that gives me a good feeling!!!

53. Hisham | May 31, 2007 at 8:37 am | Permalink

    Kimmy Robin Phil,

    thank you for this interesting debate and i wish you have more of these debates

    sincerely,

    Hisham from Saudi Arabia

{ 2 } Trackbacks

1. Brown Blogger Brigade | June 16, 2006 at 9:16 pm | Permalink

   following is an abbreviated translation from some of the Arabic-language blogs. It was initially published at Global Voices? Arabic language and the Internet? Marwan, from Subzero Blue blog, writes in his Arabic blog about the new Google NewsRead the rest

2. Palestine Blogs | June 16, 2006 at 9:12 pm | Permalink

   Arabisc: The Arabic Bloggers Ken, Media, Anti-Blogging and the World Cup On June 16th, 2006, from Sabbah's Blog