Saturday, September 26, 2009

Heaven, Hell and the Behavior of God


As we enter Autumn here in Chicago and contemplate Winter, I thought a post about death and imagined suffering appropriate.

This past year for me has been one of existential grumbling. It started with our economic melt-down and gained momentum when I was asked by a friend if I've ever heard a faithful person use the concepts of Heaven and Hell as anything more than a carrot or a stick.

I've discovered that the contemplation of this type of blunt suffering is a specific branch of theology known as theodicy. Theodicy looks to justify the behavior of god.

David Hume in his Dialogues concerning Natural Religion says it this way, "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then evil?"

True believers rationalize all sorts of answers to defend their faith and justify their god or gods. There are many and they range from the concept of free will to the concept of impotence. None of these theories however provide me a workable answer to my friend's question regarding the use of Heaven and Hell. A person's imagined concept of each, based on my experience, has been nothing more than either a carrot or a stick to get people to behave in the face of fearful unknowns.

I recently have entered dialogue with a true believer regarding the concepts of god and afterlife who said that, "looking at it without the lens of Christianity- simply by looking at the vast expanse of the universe and realizing our very small and tiny place in it---you must admit that we are not in control."

I agree with him and in observation see this recognition as why we invent concepts like Heaven and Hell; to control our fear in the face of randomness.

Scientists that deal with randomness call this pre-supposition, the availabilty heuristic and it is a fallacy derived from our ability to conceive outcomes.

The theory of the availability heuristic states that simply, "if you can think of it, it must be important." For example, A person argues that cigarette smoking is not unhealthy because his grandfather smoked three packs of cigarettes a day and lived to be 100. The grandfather's health could simply be an unusual case that does not speak to the health of smokers in general

The availability heuristic provides good explanation for our attachment to Heaven, Hell and the Behavior of God. We manifest our personified understanding of a better self in an imaginary relationship with a character in a book (e.g. Jesus, Allah) and then we take actions against fellow humans to protect these imaginary relationships (e.g. The Inquisition, 9-11).

To be frank, I find most of theology to be unjustifiable rhetoric and all of it ignores the exclusivity of its own claims or, to be direct, the historical injustices done in the name of their exclusivity. At a certain point it seems like it has the same importance as discussing what color light saber cuts better, blue or red?

History shows that the enlightened thinker Denis Diderot was correct when he said, "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled in the entrails of the last priest."

There is nothing unfalsifiable or self-evident in the claims theologies make and they rely on a non sequiter.

Major Premise: The universe is a chaotic environment beyond the control of sentient beings

Minor Premise: Humans are sentient beings

Conclusion: God is in control of human beings

This is an argument from ignorance. Thinking people realize they can't control the randomness of the universe and therefore assign meaning to it by creating a more powerful personified "other" who can control it for them.

They place this imagined "other" in control to minimize the conscious understanding they have of their own death. This imaginary relationship then defines their sense of courage and morality which, by definition, delegitimizes all other relationships that don't share their imaginary one.

I can understand the psychological motivation to do such a thing and even accept it as a human need to order our consciousness but, reject the implication that this type of fear ennobles the imagined "other" we create.

The concepts of Heaven and Hell extend from this imaginary relationship. They only serve the one imagining the relationship because they serve to ennoble the imagined "other". This service often comes at the expense of intrinsic life (e.g. The Inquisition, 9-11).

Superstitious revelation becomes the weight-bearing mechanism to leverage the unknown. These superstitions contradict the virute they purport (e.g. "It takes courage to recognize that we need a God").

No, it takes courage to realize no one is coming to save us yet, our common welfare demands that we submit to the self-evident truth all people are valuable regardless of their race, creed, sex and sexual orientation.

They matter because they live and they will die. Their worth is not predicated on how they give god his/its glory.

Theology and religion deny the self-evident truth all people are created equal. They demand sanctioned attitudes, beliefs and behaviors to legitimize intrinsic life and, by doing so, create violent seperation between us.

They are products of our imagination to minimize our fear and therefore will be fearfully defended (e.g. The Inquisition, 9-11) when someone attributes them to be what they are, imaginary.

I've lived within the world-view faith purports and now, am living outside of it.

I feel a greater sense of morality knowing that my exercise of kindness, accountability, respect, and love extend from my humanity rather than some imagined divinity. For me, Heaven is simply a metaphor where I find the authentic freedom to live my life and let others live theirs.

Unfortunately, true believers take ritualistic actions where this metaphor's possibility becomes obscured due to the haggling over its meaning.

76 comments:

mud_rake said...

"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled in the entrails of the last priest."

Ain't that the truth!

I find it most amusing that we humans believe that our life and death is something more 'special' than the life and death of, say, a horse.

We believe that this corpus which we drag around throughout our lives ought not to die, like a dog or a fox, but somehow 'live forever' in another imagined time and place. We can't accept the natural life/death cycle. Thus, we invent the supernatural will all of the glitz, horror and amazement of a Star Wars episode.

Funny stuff. Odd, but funny.

Barb said...

Chuck --Not all believers see God as "controlling" all things. some of us believe there are random events --and events caused by us with our free will.

You say we have invented life after death and eternal consequences, but you can't know that, can you? What if, in fact, this belief was revealed to prophets of old --what if Christ really did rise from the dead and teach us to believe in Him so we might be resurrected some day also? What if there really IS a creator/god?

Do you agree with Mudrake that we are of no more consequence in the universe than the animals?

Barb said...

you wrote: "I feel a greater sense of morality knowing that my exercise of kindness, accountability, respect, and love extend from my humanity rather than some imagined divinity. For me, Heaven is simply a metaphor where I find the authentic freedom to live my life and let others live theirs."

A greater sense of morality than whom or what? greater than if you believed in God? greater than those who do believe in God? What are you saying?

There is no threat to your freedom to live your life --except from despots and the cruel people who would deprive you of your "inalienable rights endowed by the Creator." And of course, mortality itself -- THAT'S a threat to your freedom to live. Christ's resurrection is my source of hope against mortality.

Chuck O'Connor said...

Barb,

I find when you say this, "There is no threat to your freedom to live your life --except from despots and the cruel people who would deprive you of your "inalienable rights endowed by the Creator," you are either naive or a liar. Do some research on RJ Rushdoony, Howard F. Ahmanson, The Discovery Institute and its affiliations with guys like William Lane Craig, Michael Medved, and the Republican Leadership.

To answer your question regarding my morality, yes, I find a deeper ethic knowing that I am a temporary human living a finite existance than when I believed in heavenly presuppositions and biblical revelation.

Timo said...

Another intriguing post from you, my friend. Thank you for your thoughts.


What I find to be most frustrating in our spiritual lives (and what I think you are aluding to), is the tangle we are all in between two aspects of religion, namely faith and theology.

Faith is an experience, and as such it needs nothing but one’s self to be true. This is a personal truth, and while it can be dangerous to declair it as universal, the more I encounter people with similar experiences, I begin to do just that. Theology (loosely defined for the purposes of this post), is a human attempt to understand this and similar experiences, and create a framework to explore and deepen faith.

Science, actually has a good parallel example to this, mathematics. Math is a human attempt to create a framework of the physical world to explore and deepen our understanding of it. It most often works really well, and even can predict things that we have not experienced yet. But there are times, usually when science encounters phenominom that it does not understand yet, that math (I again stress, a human construct) gets it wrong. One of the best examples is the 19th century theory of “the ether”, which was entirely extrapolated from theories of the universe at the time (which are based on mathematics and observation). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ether_(physics_and_astronomy) This lead science down a dead end road, until someone came up with new math to correct the problem (Einstein). It was a struggle for the scientific community, and a reminder of how fragile human constructs, like mathematics, can be.

Theology has the same problem. By studying the words of spiritual texts we construct a framework that often helps us deepen the experience of faith. But we often fall into the trap of following the construct as the 19th century scientists did, and this can lead down some very dangerous roads (you accurately cite the inquisition and 9/11). In fact, the bible warns us about this very tendency in religious life. It’s called idolatry. The worship of a human construct. When we forget that any theology (including the holy book itself) is just a sign post pointing to God, and we begin to believe that it is God (and it seems like many fundamentalists of all religions do just that), we are walking towards a dead end.

So then I get to the question which intrigues me most, what do we do about it? Burning bibles, or turning one’s back on the wisdom of religious traditions is not the answer to me, at least. If our faith in the construct is shaken, we don’t have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We fix the construct (like the scientists did). In other words, we reinterprit our views on the bible and other religious texts in the context of modern life, in the context of our religious experiences.
For me, this means looking to the bible or Christ himself not as someone who “does the saving for us”, but as someone who shows us the way to salvation. We have to do the work and struggle with the text of the bible, not just blindly believe what the words say. Learn to see the bible (or Koran or Bhagavad Gita or Tao te Ching etc.) as a sign post to enlightenment, and then take up your cross.

If heaven and hell is a concept that helps you deepen your faith, use it. If not, try and find a new meaning to them that will bring you closer to the divine (which is what I have done). That’s the struggle. Once more, thanks Chuck for the wonderful stimulation that your blog tickled in my brain. :-)

- Timo

Chuck O'Connor said...

Timo,

You are the friend who asked me the question if Heaven or Hell was a carrot or a stick?

Do you remember?

Great thoughts in your response. I agree with them and they are the reason why I still attend a bible church that engages in expository preaching. I don't always agree with the historical claims made when the pastor devlops an exigesis but, I bring a skeptics annotated bible to the service and consider the words within my personal experience.

As I grow, the greys of life have deeper spiritual meaning then either the blacks or whites.

I may need to build on them in a later post.

Be good to yourself.

Timo said...

Hei Chuck,

Yes I remember that it was me, but I guess didn't want to toot my own horn.

Oh yeah, the greys of life of where it is. Or as I like to put it, the colors of life! I understand the appeal of having things black and white. It's both simple to understand, and very inspirational. I think my love fantasy literature (Tolkien etc.) is in part connected to wanting life to be very clear and understandable. But the actual world just is not a place of fantasy, and as much as I would love it to be so, I would much rather be real. And that makes the colorful view point far more fascinating.

Be good to yourself as well.

Barb said...

So how do you feel threatened in how you would live your life by the Discovery Institute, Medved, et al? I hadn't heard of them threatening to interfere with people's life choices.

Unless you mean, the pro-life movement --they don't think there's anything legit about killing people in the womb. And the Christians don't affirm gay marriage either --considering that Jesus echoed the Genesis plan --male and female --to become one flesh and procreate.

Except for not making gay marriage the law of the land --and opposing abortion --how would Medved and The Discovery Institute, etc., interfere with your freedom?

You give no reason why you would live more ethically as an atheist than as a Christian. Could be that this is true of you, but why?

Chuck O'Connor said...

Barb,

The Discovery Institute's stated goals are to overturn the Establishment Clause and institute a Judeo-Christian Theocracy along the lines that RJ Rushdooney advocated (e.g. Levitical Law replaces Constitutional Law). I am of the mind-set that gay rights are civil rights. When a minority is denied due process than we all are denied due process. I am not an atheist. I suggest you educate yourself on the origins of our political system (maybe start with Jefferson's attitudes towards Calvinists or what Washington stated about America's religious standing). I hate to say it but you come across as a brain-washed human being who is ignorant of current events and history. Additionally, ethics are not an either/or question. I don't have to explain why my morality works for me any more than you have to explain why your morality works for you to have it work within a legal framework. That is what "self-evident" rights mean.

Barb said...

Of course you don't HAVE to explain your statements or defend them in a discussion. I thought you were blogging in order to have discussions and explain your world view --especially to influence people who aren't as "enlightened" as you --silly me.

Levitical law? the discovery institute? Where is your proof of that? For one thing, that institute isn't all comprised of Judeo-Christian folks -as I understand it. There are even atheists on record who doubt Darwin. Perhaps it is a theistic organization in its founding statements --but I don't believe your claim about them and levitical law replacing constitutional law. I bet that's your pro-gay interp.

2ndly, just because the church follows Old and New Testaments and all other cultures regarding the definition and purpose of "marriage" and our sex roles as husband/wife-father/mother --foundation of families --does not mean the church still believes we are under levitical law. In fact, we are not under the law in the old testament sense --but have a freedom in Christ because of HIs atonement for our sin. At the same time, and I suppose it sounds paradoxical to you, we are called to righteousness and repentance for sin --but breaking the law need not damn us or bring the 2nd death as a penalty --we have the gift of grace in Christ.

But as He said, the institution of marriage still stands under grace --and it is defined as the sexual union of a man and wife --as the foundation of the future generations. That's the purpose of our sexuality and New Testament Grace does not give us license to ignore that purpose. We are free to be celibate and single --Paul recommended it, of course, since he was --but children are to be raised to understand the great gift of the polarity of opposites where our bodies are concerned --boys to be like Daddy and girls to be like Mommy.

There would be much less homosexuality if marriages were good, if fathers cultivated good relationships with their sons --if mothers cultivated their boys' identification with good men --if peers allowed people to be "different" in their talents and interests without labeling them as gay, creating self-doubt about one's normalcy. And if people learned to flee perverse thoughts and sinful actions from the first inkling.

Chuck O'Connor said...

Barb,

Thanks for reading and posting.

I ask you, if you wish to post, to not project your motivations for discourse onto me. The reason on blog is to, as the title of the blog states, battle confusion and wrestle ideas because I am often confused and this blog operates as a science of my mind, for me. My morality and philosophy does not grow in value through evangelical coercion nor does it shrink in value by holding a majority of one.

Secondly, I suggest you educate yourself on the Discovery Institute from an outsider perspetive. I recommend Max Blumenthal's very good book "Republican Gomorrah". You will see that the Discovery Institure is bankrolled by a guy named Howard Ahmanson who is a disciple of RJ Rushdooney. Within the Discovery Institute's strategic documents is something known as the "Wedge" document. The "Wedge" document looks to obfuscate developed science. It's original stated goal was to, "defeat sceientif materialism and its destrucive moral, cultural and political legacies" and "renew" science and culture along Judeo-Christian lines. Ahmanson has stated the implication of such a mission would be the subjection of our society to RJ Rushdooney's Levitical Law plan.

I know all of the mythic arguments you make and once believed them. I now see them as pre-scientific philosophy which seem perfectly fine for people living in a time where they saw the earth as flat but, can only create unwarranted status for an exclusive group of people which look to divide humanity due to their fears today.

Your observations on homosexuality will need to be better argued for me to believe them as anything more than self-rigteous bigotry empowered by non-falsifiable superstition.

The 14th Amendment provides all Americans with equality under the law animated by due process. You of course in your adherence to religion wish to deny all Americans this right.

Barb said...

Nah --I don't want to deprive people of their 14th amendment rights. As for equality under the law --all people have a right to find someone of the opposite sex to marry --so we all have an equal right under the law, as regards the right to marry.

Just because adulterers wanted no unpleasant consequences, should never have resulted in "no fault divorce." Adultery is still frowned upon and considered shameful, generally, even in Am. culture today, but we have overly accommodated adulterers who divorce to the disadvantage of women and children.

Pedophilia still has no pride parades nor legal permission --though NAMBLA reportedly has marched in the gay pride parades.

There is no inherent constitutional right to sex and marriage with your own sex --nor a right to adultery or pedophilia or rape or prostitution, incest, slave trade, etc. There ARE limits to our sexual inclinations and for good reasons of public health, and the value of intact families to the economic, physical and emotional health of present and future generations--children.

And we need people to prefer heterosexuality and procreation--as we need able-bodied offspring for the military, for a tax-paying work force, for national defense --children help us grow old more gracefully and cheerfully.

Freedom is not absolute wherever there is Rule of Law. The majority are supposed to make these laws based on good reasoning --and for the common good.

I've never heard of your Rushdooney and the others you mention --so I'm thinking they aren't THAT big in evangelical circles because I really am well-read in religous news --all my life.

Nor is there some grand overriding evangelical Christian conspiracy to replace the Constitution with a theocracy, as your sources assert.

That's just a charge made against those who don't believe in evolution's naturalistic implications and assumptions --who believe that Christianity is RIGHT for the common good in its teachings on abortion and gay rights, family values, etc. --who believe that it isn't "establishing religion" when historically Christian American PEOPLE acknowledge a Supreme Being in their courts and schools --over the objection of the atheistic minority who prefer that THEIR world view be "established."

What I'm trying to make clear is that our gov't can be based on what the majority of people consider to be right --and the religion behind their morals and laws is not the issue. Muslims want Sharia Law --they DO want Allahcracy. Christians are not asking for Christianity to be imposed --but for decency and abiding values that work for the good of people --based on what we can plainly see about human nature, families, parenting, children, divorce, gambling, drugs, human rights --etc. Even an honest, pragmatic approach to societal ethics will agree with much that Christianity asserts.

IMHO!

Chuck O'Connor said...

Barb,

Thank you for the excellent illustration of the availability heuristic. Because you don't know RJ Rushdooney's name you therefore think this ignorance is an important variable in the shaping of modern Amercian evangelical Christianity. Tim Lahaye, James Dobson, and Chuck Colson have all cited Mr. Rushdooney as an influential source to their world-view. Newsweek called his religious institution The Chalcedon Foundation the think tank for the religious right.

Everything esle you wrote is perfectly in line with his philosophy and as such exists as further illustration to the devious anti-liberty Dominionism believed by self-righteous Christians.

You can learn about the author of your beliefs here: http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/05/01/r-j-rushdoony-reconstructionist-and-racist-bigot/

Thanks again for postin.

Chuck O'Connor said...

The following comments were sent to me via email from my sister-in-law (one of the smartest and courageous people I know). I asked permission to re-post them because they seemed to add to the insight here.

Your blog this week touched on some themes I have been musing over as I'm reading a book by Kathleen Norris called Cloister Walk. She is best known for her book, Dakota, A Spiritual Biography, and is primarily a poet. Cloister Walk is about her experience as a poet, a married woman, and a "doubter" (her term) with Benedictine monasteries. The book is about the monastic life of Benedictine monks and nuns, their liturgy and lectio divina (sacred reading--I love this concept!), but also about her spiritual experience and her identity as a writer.

Here are a couple of quotes I copied into my journal that I have been meditating on, from her book:

p. 38 [in the chapter about how the liturgical reading of the book of Jeremiah affected her] "All of us, I suspect, have times when we're made to suffer simply for being who and what we are, and we become adept at inventing means of escape. . . . But Jeremiah reminded me that the pain that comes from one's identity, that grows out of the response to the call, can't be escaped or pushed aside. It must be gone through. He led me into the heart of pain, forcing me to recognize that to answer a call as a prophet, or a poet for that matter, is to reject the authority of credentials, of human valuation of any kind, accepting only the authority of the call itself."

p. 45 [referring to the words of Psalm 46--"God is within, it cannot be shaken] "I finally accept the cross of myself, a burden I've carried since childhood, and felt so acutely in my teens. The cross of difference, of being outside, always other. But now, I am free to take it on."

p. 43 [as a writer] "I say the words I need to say, knowing that most people will ignore me, some will say, 'You have no right,' and a few will tell me I've expressed the things they've long desired to articulate but lacked the words to do so."

I know this is not a direct response to your blog posting, but it is part of my "lectio divina" this week and seems tangentially related to some things you said in your blog, and I bring them forth to you in acknowledgement of our shared woundedness. I am meditating on these words, and rising to the surface are the ways in which I felt inherently wrong, and suffered, for being who and what I am. As I stand at the crossroads at this moment in my life, wavering on whether to accept the call to write, I am having to face the need to embrace who I am, my difference, my uniqueness, my fears of the unacceptability of what I might have to say in my writing. I am meditating on Jung's discussion of amor fati, the love of one's fate.

I say to myself, "I reject human valuation" not to put a chip on my shoulder, to be counterphobic, or to pretend that feeling misunderstood doesn't hurt, but to bolster my commitment to make "the authority of the call itself" a dearer value in my heart than the authority of approval.

Love,
Angie

Barb said...

Do correct me if I'm wrong --but from what I can tell, prominent evangelicals are ACCUSED at your linked website of being like Rushdooney and Chalcedon Foundation --racist, white supremacist, etc. That's not evangelical Christianity. Show me where Dobson, et al, praise the man or follow him or have some secret conspiratorial link to him and Chalcedon. This charge, appears to me to be an attempt to smear evangelicals by linking them to Rushdooney. Show me the link that proves a link! And I'll still assert that evangelicals are not inherently by definition "racists" or white supremacists, or haters of Jews or Holocaust deniars. That's not to say there are no claims to be Christian by the Ku Klux Klan and Rushdooney --that there are no "christians" who want Christian theocracy --but I don't know personally very many. I do know a very few racists who claim to be Christian, but their lives don't reflect Christ in MANY ways--not just in their racial views.

Barb said...

You seem to think that because Christians want the status quo of state and national mottos acknowledging a national faith in an undefined, non-denominational Creator God, respect for the Ten C's as a basis for modern morals and laws, the right to prayer for wisdom and security whenever we gather to govern, judge, legislate or send out or bury our troops --that somehow we are all of a sudden, in the 21st C., "establishing religion," counter to the Constitution.

Atheists want us to conduct life as though there is no God -favoring and establishing THEIR a-religious or anti-religious worldview.

Considering the possibility that there is a God who says He will direct our paths if we acknowledge him, whose will should we favor? Those who think He is not there? or those who believe He is?

There is no skin off the unbeliever's nose when he has to endure the prayers and faith of others --but a greater crime is committed when atheistic regimes try to restrict freedom of religion and free expression of religious beliefs.

But, ah, of course, the rub is in the abortion and the marriage issues and desires for unrestrained porn, polygamy, gay marriage, etc. Nowdays, religion is the only thing standing in the way of unfettered debauchery.

Chuck O'Connor said...

Barb you said, " . . . but I don't know personally very many."

Thanks again for providing another glowing example of the availabilty heuristic.

Here's a good link to an interview with Max Blumenthal where he makes the case for Evangelicals desiring exclusive dominion over American public life (which of course is exactly what you argue for when you say someone without presupposed faith will become a pornographic abortionist).

http://debatebothsides.com/showthread.php?t=81502

Additionally, the highest rates of teen pregnancy, abortion, STDs, and Divorce reside in the American "Bible Belt".

Barb said...

Well, y'see, Chuck, most of the people I know the best are probably evangelicals. I went to an evangelical college; I read evangelical magazines; I don't know how far back my family goes as protestant evangelical Christians --several generations. I know what and whom they read --I know what they argue about --and can tell you about Calvinism, Pentecostalism, Methodist history, Lutheran and Methodist schisms, the protestant differences with Catholics, and what the non-evangelical main-line churches have been doing for years that has gotten them to the place where they are today: small and shrinking.

So when you identify evangelicals with white supremacy --and other problems in the Bible belt, I know you are missing the heart of the movement to focus on some fringe group(s).

You talk about the Bible belt as having the most unwed pregnancy?? You must mean the urban areas within the Bible belt --and wherever urban areas are.

But actually, American culture IS a mess and TV culture has told all the kids that shacking up and sleeping together unmarried is normal and romantic, a path to true love and everybody does it--amd they are now promoting homosexuality so we shall see more of that --and you can't lay the problems at the evangelical church door --more than at the school-house door, wherel liberalism prevails, and the home doors, where amoral/immoral TV is raising the kids!

No, I don't argue for evangelical "dominion" --I'm happy to have moral Catholics, Jews, JW's and MOrmons and even Muslims, (if they believe in religious freedom and democracy) share in the majority who shape this nation with their votes and legislation. I do wish we all agreed that porn is addictive and destructive --and shut down the gambling again. I saw where some poor sap owed a casino over 600,000. I do think we need to discourage alcohol use the way we discourage nicotine. The evangelicals have been waffling on the liquor issue in recent years.
And abortion is simply a right to life issue. As for homosexuality, we need to give parents hope and help in raising kids who enjoy being what they were intended to be --male or female --in every sense of the word. We should encourage families to get along and make strong homes for their children. As long as teens start having pre-marital sex and not marrying, we are going to see more social dysfunction --and poverty --more of the underclass in despair.

Chuck O'Connor said...

Barb,

The highest rate of teen pregnancies, STDs and abortions is in Lubbock Texas where abstinance-only sex education is mandated.

The areas of the country where science-based sex education (including respectful sexuality and identity education) have the lowest incidence of these social ills.

Your theology doesn't match statistical reality.

If you want to make a case to back up all of your "Hellfire" rhetoric then I will be glad to hear it but, the stats I have seen make you into a liar.

Barb said...

did you see any hellfire rhetoric? It wasn't mine!

I don't know anything about the make-up of Lubbock --but I don't believe YOUR conclusions about abstinence ed vs. another kind.

It's not good to have NO sex ed --and abstinence ed taught by people who don't believe in abstinence ed isn't good either. Nor is the Boston sex ed approach which advocates all sorts of immoral activity and gives explicit instruction on perverse acts.

I believe in giving facts to kids --and telling them that if they are going to be sexually active, they must use condoms -as the only potential protection against STD's --2nd in effectiveness to abstinence. I think they need to know that condoms don't protect self-esteem or emotions or prevent heartbreak of break-up and regret after sexual intimacy. But we are whistling in the wind if our kids have access to the opposite sex, interest in the opposite sex --and no one at home --no protection from parents. Temptation is strong for people without deterrents.

I believe in telling youth that waiting for marriage is possible and good--and romantic. I have one daughter who waited and one who is still waiting. You'll say I don't know that --but I do.

Chuck O'Connor said...

Barb,

I comprehended your entire demonization of homosexuals as "hell-fire" rhetoric. I'd love to hear your detailed, evidence-based argument in regards to homosexuality's cause and consequences. I have many homosexual friends who are wise, responsible, and kind people. They live lives of morality and were raised by two loving heterosexual parents. One in fact has an evangelical minister as a father. Your demonization of homosexuals is nothing more than bigotry to me and the only authority which you appeal to is the bible.

I'm glad we agree on teaching science-based sex education.

The stats I cite regarding Lubbock are documented and you can seek them out yourself.

Barb said...

I just read Time magazine on the subject of sex ed --and they say that the numbers of teen pregnancy have only recently begun to rise again --after the peak in the early 90's --Abstinence until marriage as a recommended lifestyle choice HAS indeed APPARENTLY reduced the rate of teen pregnancy --along with the effects of welfare reform from the GOP Contract with America early in Clinton's term. (THOUGH i'M NOT SAYING THAT WAS tIME'S ANALYSIS. They say abstinence ed is not now working --but something DID cause a drop since early 90's. And I know that abstinence ed WAS dropped and avoided, even though funded, by liberal sex ed approaches in the last couple of years when some unfair "studies" claimed abstinence ed was not working --indeed, if it isn't used, it won't work.

Now they are seeing a bit of a rise again- -however comprehensive sex ed is described by Time as abstinence first --and not the pre-90's "non-judgmental morally neutral, don't scare anybody, don't weigh in as a teacher --Students, decide what's right and wrong and best for yourself --and "o -by the way --you CAN say no if you really want to. Here are some ways to resist peer pressure if you prefer."

NOW, Time says the approach IS to point out all the downsides of pre-marital sex--while still equipping students with some info about condoms/birth control, etc. Very important that they know that birth control itself doesn't prevent disease --and that condoms aren't 100 percent if you get into bed with someone --there are all sorts of failure possibilities once you cross the threshold to the bedroom door including a guy's failure to use it after all --and failure to use it properly--and condom failure.) They say the newer approach includes all the economic realities of teen pregnancy, too.

But what we don't need is abortion as a recommendation to avoid the downsides of teen parenting--better to promote adoption.

I didn't see it in this article, but I know that certain ethnic groups are statistically more prone to premarital pregnancy--so I ask you, who makes up Lubbock Texas?

Barb said...

As for your comment on homosexuals, there is always a first thought to reject at the mind's gate, first temptation to resist, first opportunity for same sex activity to flee.

Just as with pedophiles, adulterers, rapists,fetishists --and even with people just tempted to fornicate. The more one weakens one's will by indulgence, the farther into the trap he goes.

A preacher's son can be led astray, or rebellious in spirit, or poorly parented, leading to sexual abnormalcy and sex addiction --but not necessarily poorly parented, I might add.

Of course, such a person can otherwise have good qualities.

Barb said...

No wonder you are battling confusion.

The Bible isn't the only reason to find homosexuality 2nd-rate as a life-style situation. We need pro-creators. We don't need the physical and emotional health problems of certain sexual proclivities/addictions. You think the only problem for homosexuals is other people's disapproval --I don't think that's the case.

Chuck O'Connor said...

Barb,

I do appreciate your consistency in dialoguing here. I think you are my first (and only) fan. I do however find your willingness to qualify homosexuality with bestiality and pedophilia disturbing. To me, your argument is akin to antebellum supporters of slavery arguing for it because they said black people descended from Ham. I don't think everyone benefits from a homosexual life-style. I am happily heterosexual and am looking forward to starting a family. I just don't think your presupposition that homosexuality is a sinful choice is valid and your willingness to demonize them amounts to bigotry.

By the way, my lesbian friends are the least likely to contradict any STDs and, with the help of a sperm bank, can ably pro-create.

Barb said...

Interesting. I didn't mention bestiality here, did I?

Your lesbian friends are also subject to STD's, believe it or not. Not everything is about bodily fluids --but genital contact --and oral contact--and promiscuity.

We try to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear when it comes to homosexual acts and the multiple partners they traditionally have before settling down to one --for which we are not designed. Heterosexuals are just as wrong --and at risk--when they flit from bed to bed before monogamous marriage.

The Bible never referred to skin color, etc., regarding curses on some persons and their descendents because of their sins.

The human race is cursed to die because of sin.

I know I'm called a bigot --but I'm just telling you that homosexuality is a behavior and a mindset --not a bio-caused condition ---and it is explicitly called forbidden, a sin, in both old and new testaments.

Chuck O'Connor said...

Barb,

You are not denied the expression and practice of your beliefs due to the constitution. Homosexuals should be afforded the same respect. You can't make a case against them outside of the bible and therefore denying them equal protection under marriage law is unconstitutional. You can believe whatever you wish so if you have a relative who happens to be homosexual you can take whatever action you wish to distance yourself from them but, you can't allow your religious beliefs to define civil law. If your only appeal is to the authority of the bible (which it is) then you can't keep homosexuals from enjoying the equal protections you and I enjoy as married people. It is illegal. I don't deny you your beliefs. I do think you are a bigot but, you can worship and proslethyze all you want (and as much as you want here). You just can't default to making law defining right by defaulting to "the bible says so."

Barb said...

There are plenty of common sense reasons why "marriage" is for heterosexual couples --and millenia of law and tradition, as well. Marriage is the foundation of the family --the legal institution into which children are born and raised. Gays couple together and no one is stopping them, but we shouldn't have to redefine "marriage," to accommodate their abnormal inclinations.

Barb said...

Some people "believe" in lying, cheating, murdering, stealing, polygamy, sex with under-aged people --and there's NAMBLA. Are you saying our Constitution must accommodate everyone's beliefs about what is right or wrong?

Chuck O'Connor said...

Barb,

You said, "Some people "believe" in lying, cheating, murdering, stealing, polygamy, sex with under-aged people --and there's NAMBLA. Are you saying our Constitution must accommodate everyone's beliefs about what is right or wrong?"

Please show me how these are analogous to two consenting adults choosing to partner and love one another for better or worse. If you can't logically equate these examples with gay marriage outside a biblical appeal to authority then I have to call you on your fallacy.

Sorry but, the marriage debate is not a semantic one based on a tradition but a legal one based on equal protection and the 14th amendment.

And, I know various homosexual couples comfortably raising children in homes full of love and kindness. These children have grown up to be normal and well-adjusted.

Barb said...

How does a parent teach the next generation to be chaste and wait for marriage if he/she went in search of his/her own sexual identity --opening the doorway to promiscuity for years before "partnering" in so many cases --which has resulted in a very high rate of STD's for homosexuals?

Don't tell me that once a person finds he/she readily drops trou for strangers or for casual dates that he/she readily turns off this behavior by getting "married." In fact, some of the "married" homosexuals have blatantly said this did not mean monogamy for them.

I'm sure there are some homosexuals raising children with love --but I recall the young "son" of Rosie O Donnell who said, "But I want a Dad!" and she told him he was out of luck --or words to that effect. She told the story, as I recall. And now that couple has split up --putting the kids through break-up trauma and all the animosity that goes with it. I bet gay relationships ARE frought with even more stress than hetero --which I admit, also have a bad record for staying together these days.

I remember reading about the then-claimed, well-adjusted daughter of a lesbian who told how she WAS embarrassed during her growing up years by her lesbian mom and the wallpaper with female nudes all over it in their bathroom. Responsible parents don't put such wallpaper in their homes and expect their kids to be able to bring their friends home without embarrassment. Not everything should be about sex and sexual identity and searching for your identity and getting other people to approve your orientation and accept your proclivities as normal --when they simply are not only not normative --but against nature. (Don't bother telling me how much homosexuality you've heard about in the animal kingdom --we are NOT animals who hump legs, eat their young, eat feces, or occasionally can't tell the difference between male and female.)

While nature is the norm --there are aberrations in nature --and so it is with human development --but my BELIEF and OBSERVATION tells me there is a choice at the first thought, the first act of homosexuality--to reject the ideation and the experiences --just as you should reject thoughts of incest or adultery or pedophilia or rape. People get these inklings --like the father of Michelle Phillips under the influence of drugs --who slept with her for 10 years, she says. He felt compelled --he desired his own daughter. Why isn't that ALSO right if homosexual coupling is right --I think it didn't start until she was 19 --not under age --apparently consenting adults under the influence. And how much alcoholism is there among homosexuals? I've heard more than the usual.

You belittle the authority of scripture --and while we don't base law on scripture per se --the founders of this country had ideas of decency (and some wrong ideas about slavery, too) which they codified into law. None of them ever imagined that marriage could be between two men or two women --or they would've spelled out what they considered obvious--that marriage was the union of a man and wife --and no other combo. They ruled against polygamy also.
and they ruled against sodomy in their local statutes -- "buggery."

Now we are celebrating it and pushing it in elem. classrooms, encouraging sexual identity confusion in kids also with our approval of cross-dressing and trans-gendering.

you can't prove, BTW, that the Bible is not from a Creator-God and thus a document to ignore. It is the basis for a good difference between the US and most of the rest of the world.

Chuck O'Connor said...

Barb,

Lots to respond to and I don't have enought time on my lunch break. I will get back as soon as I can. Be well.

Chuck O'Connor said...

Barb,

I re-read your last comment and can only say that it is more bigotry supported by opinion.

If you wish to discuss the meaning of the blog entry then I will respond (Theodicy, the psychology of belief). I will even continue to dialogue if you simply offer debatable evidence to the authority you claim but, I can't remain sane and continue to respond to your arrogant hatred.

Thanks.

Barb said...

You have no evidence of hatred on my part --and if you call being confident in my opinions, "arrogance," so be it.

Chuck O'Connor said...

Barb,

I understand why you would believe that you have not presented your self as hateful or arrogant. Your truth claims based on faith and the bible must be facts to you but, you've never provided evidence to your gay-baiting assertions that homosexuality is the equivalent to pedophilia or that it correlates with increased alcoholism.

I understand that you were once a teacher so, I will use the Merriam Webster definitions of both Hatred and Arrogance and see if you see yourself in either (based on your gay-baiting).

Hatred - prejudiced hostility or animosity; old racial prejudices and national hatreds

Arrogance - an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions

Your inability to provide objective evidence to your claims that homosexuals are what you say they are shows a prejudiced superiority based on presumptions and assumptions.

Your judgments of others sins and their damaging influence on society make me mindful of Luke 6:42. I wonder if you meditate on your own failings and how they impact your capacity for understanding or compassion.

I worry much more about the impact of the self-righteous than I do about concensual sex.

Be well.

Peace.

Barb said...

Self-righteousness is always the attack on those who make so called "truth-claims," isn't it?

I don't say I am without sin or better than thou --nor think it. I know that, when it comes to some lifestyles, "there but for the grace of God go I."

I DO understand sexual ideation and erotic thinking --and can IMAGINE how some people would be addicted to wrong thinking and wrong indulgences, ruled by the urges in their pants --and they usually know it's wrong, also --as regards the beginning of homosexual, pedophilic, adulterous, and sex crime thinking.

For homosexuals and transgenders, self-image is the culprit --and that is shaped in childhood. If you ever read the letters on Oprah's website by mothers of babies wondering if their babies were gay or in the wrong body, you'd see how much the parents have to do with this disordered thinking. They see a boy toddler carry mom's purse or dress up in her shoes and clothes, and these mothers jump to the conclusion that their child is abnormal --and they do nothing to guide or to shape self-image in a normal direction. It is ridiculous the ignorance that abounds about sexuality today--and the abdication of parental roles in the shaping of sexuality--the accommodation of errant thinking and all inclinations.

Culture and education, media AND parents--and the demise of religious faith --all have played a role in the gaying of america.

But, rebellion against parents also is a factor for some aberrant behavior --as is the NORMAL phase of same-sex admiration and longing for same-sex friends first. Kids are now made to think this is a sign of gayness instead of a passing and normal phase.

BTW, My expression of opinions comes across as no more arrogant than the expression of opposite opinions in blogville.

I'm not arrogant about ME --I am sure of what I think. And will not apologize for that.

Barb said...

I should clarify--I am sure of what I think because my worldview is founded on the Bible --which I do believe to be a revelation of God to man about our sordid history, our sin nature, the curse of death for sin, and our need for a Savior, and His provision of that Savior in the incarnate resurrected Christ of 21 centuries ago.

Just imagine, now that we commonly see centenarians --there have only been 21 centenarians born on the century year since Christ's resurrection. Surely the record has been preserved such that we can rely on its truth.

Not to mention the witness in our souls when we truly invite Him in because we long for Him --and for righteousness. "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness --they will be satisfied." And it is through HIS righteousness that we are made whole and satisfied and given joy and love for others that convinces the mind of the one longing for transformation --that "He touched me --and now I am no longer the same."

Barb said...

If you really had curiosity about the homosexual lifestyle and the claims I make about it, you would visit the NARTH website. All sorts of reputable research and scholars presenting there on the topic.

mud_rake said...

Chuck- I have a LONG and frustrating association with blogger, Barb. Perhps you detected a hint of OCD?

You suggested that she is your 'fan.' That was kind of you. Here's my experience: Barb surfs the net looking for prey, much like a cheetah. She has singular purpose- to 'teach' others about the fundamentalists beliefs that her preacher grandfather instilled in her and to condemn homosexuality.

There is no point in debating her. None. She isn't really here to debate. She is here to preach and to condemn. she will do that obsessively, as her OCD demands.

Perhaps, Chuck, you enjoy this so-called debate with her, but you will soon tire of it like all of the many others have. At that point, she will leave and make her lair at another blog and begin all over again.

Barb said...

O Mudrake --you are so deluded! At least you likened me to a Cheetah instead of a Cougar!

I don't surf the net looking for liberal websites --You, e.g., first wrote about me and someone told me about it --You've had me in your gun- sites since you were a teacher where I was a school board member.

Mudrake and Chuck, when I go to liberal or atheistic websites, it's usually by following a poster at MY website to his. If they want to comment at my site, I'll comment at theirs.
Is this obsessive? And sometimes I follow them from another site where I've participated.

Isn't that what YOU do? I followed Chuck from MY website where he posted a comment.

I do like to blog and write --is that an obsession?

I like to debate issues if I know anything at all about them --is that an obsession?

What is wrong with YOU? I do know. And YOUR OCD, like your father's, (as you told it) is only a fraction of your problem. your problem is really with the Almighty, and not with me.

as for faith and fact --you have faith in what you believe to be factual --so do I. The difference is only in WHERE we put our faith--the non-believers have no more factual basis for their unbelief than they think Christians have as basis for their belief. But, in fact, I believe the historical record about Christ and the early Church. If it is TRUE,as I believe it to be, then we have a glorious hope for this fallen earth and humanity. And we have choices to make.

If I'm going to be "obsessed" let it be with the urgency of telling every soul that there is a Creator-God who loves man, His highest creation, who, through His own free will, is a sinner doomed to die --except for Christ's salvation through the Cross.

when I say I could be friendly to Mudrake if I see him on the street --I could go to lunch with him and his wife and feel genuine affection--I mean it. That's what God does in the heart. He allows us to genuinely care for people with whom we have differences --and that includes homosexuals on my part.

Barb said...

One more thing --Jesus's first message was to repent --John the Baptist announcing Him said we should repent.

For what should we repent? How do we know what sin is? It's spelled out pretty clearly in the New Testament for the Church and the world. The Genesis ideal of man and wife was upheld by Christ. Homosexuality is hardly the only sin in the world --it's just the only one that Americans are celebrating in pride parades and promoting in kindergartens.

Gandolf said...

Barb ...."Homosexuality is hardly the only sin in the world --it's just the only one that Americans are celebrating in pride parades and promoting in kindergartens."

Barb people promote world peace too,do you have a problem with it if its promoted in kindergartens?.

Its promoted because there is far to much hatered in the world.They wish to advance the rank and acceptance of peace,its not about demanding everyone be peaceful.And attitudes start forming at early ages,do you think its fine for children to only hear the one sided opinions of their parents who maybe dont think we need any more world peace?.

You tell us...."That's what God does in the heart. He allows us to genuinely care for people with whom we have differences --and that includes homosexuals on my part."

Thats sounds wonderful it really does.....But it needs to be more than just words to have any reality or worth ...Are you being completely honest?

Do you have a problem with kids in kindergarten being shown alternative ways so some can learn to maybe "genuinely care for people with whom we have differences"?.

Im no longer a believer myself,partly because i found (most often) believers all speak wonderful words that dont often match their real actions.

However i was told those who only work with words are really not yet forgiven of sinning.Infact i thought those who so loudly profess rightiousness without really having it,(are far worse in gods eyes than those that dont!).

I suppose maybe because they do the god belief a very very bad service?.

Before you jump to conclusions let me say .Im not gay.Im not all for abortion.

But im genuinely all for caring for people with whom we have differences.

Personally i think its much better to try to learn to lead by example, rather than create laws that dont work and only cause much hurt and unhappiness.Im still learning!

After all we dont have laws saying people must be gay and have abortions .Why is it that some god people feel they have the right to control everything about others with laws?.Would they like it if the shoe was on the other foot?.

From quietly reading exchanges here Barb ive noted you seem to have thrown rights of adults in the mix, with the sexual abuse of underage children etc.Im thinking maybe as a way of hopefully helping demonise it (all) a little more if possible.

Would your god be completely happy with this? ....Would he feel its being so very honest?.Is this action without sin in the eyes of your god?

On the other thread you said something to the effect of me allowing you the right to have your own opinion.I dont see where i said you couldnt!?.And what ive written here is only my opinion also, something i dont (demand)or expect you and others need accept.

You said homosexuality is the only thing being celebrated in kindergartens.
I dont really know but just maybe some kindergartens are still celebrating faithful biggoted ignorance also.Just a thought that might be worth thinking a little about, while happily throwing stones at certain people.

Hi Chuck ....Please just tell me if you would rather i didnt post on your blog.I wouldnt be offended.






















The same with regards

Barb said...

Gandolf --first, why would Chuck NOT want you to blog here? Do you disagree or something? Not that I noticed.

2ndly, teaching kindergarten students to be peaceful, fair and kind --and all the things that make for world peace-- is appropriate. Teaching them about "world peace" per se is a little questionable in that they don't know that we don't have world peace --usually --not in kdgtn. You don't need to scare them about terrorism, etc. You want to teach them to be pacifists in world affairs? Inappropriate for their age --and not your job as teacher if it means opposing our involvement in wars abroad, and national defense, etc. unless that's what all the parents want you to teach --liberal foreign policy.

There is no reason to teach them about homosexuals --suggesting that it's OK for two men to marry like a mom and dad or two women --because their parents don't all agree with you. It certainly won't naturally occur to children--unless they are "taught." I never heard or thought of such a thing until jr. high, as I recall.

I wrote about consenting adults because we DO look the other way at what they do in a free country --even adulterers. But we don't need to celebrate it with pride parades --nor elevate to the role of bishop in a Christian church a homosexual adulterer who leaves his wife and kids either.

We rightly teach children to be kind to everyone, to call no one names, to "not stand in the seat of the scornful" as the Bible says --but you don't have to spell out all the differences between people that there are in the world --nor tell them that "some of you will be homosexual" --and "It's ok to have 2 mommies or 2 daddies."

It's not necessary or adviseable to introduce the idea of homosexuality to children. Children LOVE their same sex friends first, typically --some have childish hetero interests at an early age; some do not. And some really admire almost to the point of crushes their same sex friends and want to be "best friends," with such people. We don't need to be giving them the idea that same-sex affection and preference in friends means they can grow up to be romantic and sexual with one another, marrying one another. You can teach YOUR children this, but don't you dare teach MINE.

Homosexuality is not a race --it's a sexual obsession like adultery (or rape), and an abnormal one like pedophilia, etc. Just because it's consenting adults and may not involve adultery doesn't make it good or normal or natural or right -- or inevitable and immutable like race.

Homosexuality is about a mindset and behaviors that result from that mindset. The mindset does not occur in a vacuum --and I really believe there are ways to intentionally prevent it in parenting --not that parents always help to cause it.

We DO have control over our minds and our choices and our view of what's right, wrong, acceptable or not. Most people turn away thoughts of incest at the mind's gate --people can and ought to do the same with homosexual ideation and activity.

Generally, it is not the Christian opposing gay rights who hates and can't tolerate homosexuals; it's the homosexuals who hate and can't tolerate anyone who disagrees with them about this. I know they hate me; I know I do not and must not hate them back.

there are some who come by their homosexual identity because they are effeminate boys --or masculine girls --and called names. This ridicule and bullying should be thoroughly discouraged --not because it's ok to be homosexual --but because it is cruel to stigmatize people as homosexual just because they aren't stereotypically feminine as girls or macho as guys. Those characteristics do not mean that someone is homosexual --but such persons can come to wonder if they are if labeled.

Chuck O'Connor said...

Mud, Gandy and Barb,

All are welcome.

I may not agree with you but, I like to hear other voices.

Keep writing and discussing.

Thanks for reading.

Best to you all.

Barb said...

I appreciate a tolerant liberal! tolerant toward opposition --at least when it comes to the exchange of opinions.

I realize that people now think the opposition to homosexuality is the new racism --it is "gaycism." And just as racism should not be tolerated in discussions, they believe "gaycism" should not be tolerated.

But, I really believe that sexual orientation is not the same as race in how we come to be the way we are. I really believe it is preventable and correctable and that we aren't doing kids a favor to encourage this trend as "trendy" --the latest fad --girls kissing girls, eg. All we are doing is encouraging sexual experimentation with a disease result.

Gandolf said...

Thanks Chuck .

To answer Barb i just thought it was polite to simple ask.I also get confused about stuff sometimes.

Barb i never said anything about teaching matters of terrorism in kindergartens.

Dont see where i suggest about gay marriage either.It was hatered of gays i was talking about and that maybe more peace is a good thing.

Attitudes of humans start at a early age and are not always so easy to change later.

You say .."We rightly teach children to be kind to everyone, to call no one names"

Im thinking not everyone gets taught this at home,some hear it being said at home that gay people are scum and are to be hated.These kids see other kids at kindy who they soon realize have two mums or dads,and the hatered starts hurting those kids with the gay parents also in the process.

You seem to feel this world is all about the rights of me i and the parents only.You suggest how dare anybody teach my kids what i dont like.

Yet you still expect us ALL to share OUR WORLD that has elements of hatered and not enough peace.And feel humanity as a whole has no rights with regards to the humans learned attitudes that we ALL then need to try to learn to live with.

Some homes teach that stealing and bashing people etc is fine,if these kids dont receive some alternative (opinions) on this matter in early stages of developement.Its not going to be so likely they will (decide) on a different approach.Nothing i have said was about demanding anything,it was about supplying an opinion that maybe some young kids might not be hearing.

If these parents opinion was how dare anybody teach MY children stealing and bashing is wrong,how does that make you feel about YOU also having to pay for them to eat in jail.How do you feel about stealing and bashings that continue to happen in OUR WORLD?.

Are your feelings biased when its these things?.Do you suddenly feel its just not a matter of parents rights of their children that overules, what we ALL have actually to deal with in OUR WORLD?.

You say.."It's not necessary or adviseable to introduce the idea of homosexuality to children. Children LOVE their same sex friends first, typically --some have childish hetero interests at an early age; some do not."

How do you avoid it even young children are not blind or stupid.You might suggest banning it,others might suggest sending folks who cant learn to co exist on this world in a shuttle to the moon where they can maybe find the place of their OWN like they seem to be only prepared to WANT.

You say..."there are some who come by their homosexual identity because they are effeminate boys --or masculine girls --and called names. This ridicule and bullying should be thoroughly discouraged "

Im picking because it happens to suit you, maybe in this instance at kindergarten would be fine?.

You say..."Generally, it is not the Christian opposing gay rights who hates and can't tolerate homosexuals; it's the homosexuals who hate and can't tolerate anyone who disagrees with them about this. I know they hate me; I know I do not and must not hate them back"

Some people might say we dont hate people we just want our rights to steal and bash them if we feel like it,people hate us for feeling we have these rights and send us to jail.

Barb i wont bother discussing what your opinion is on how people become gays etc.But i will say as far as i know your opinions are not backed up by many expert opinions.

You said..."I appreciate a tolerant liberal! tolerant toward opposition --at least when it comes to the exchange of opinions."

Chuck said..."All are welcome.

I may not agree with you but, I like to hear other voices.

Keep writing and discussing."

Personally i think we need to discuss these matters if we ALL want to maybe have a chance of a better world someday.And the net has given us a chance like we have never really had before.We dont need to all agree about everything,but maybe we can learn somehow to co exist better.

Barb said...

Well, Gandolf, I'm not sure I could be clearer --but I do sense that you mischaracterize my views --misunderstand.

I know you didn't bring up terrorism--but you suggested promoting "world peace" in kdgtn. I said we should promote kindness, peace, tolerance of differences, etc --but not be explicit to the point of being anti-military/war-protesting liberal types who are against national defense and the war on terrorism, etc. considering that some parents would not agree with that view. I said I didn't think kdtn was the place to discuss terrorism --unless children bring it up --as we don't want to foster insecurity in little ones --if they aren't already confronted with it as they ARE in some countries.

So it's sufficient to teach children to have peace and kindness among themselves.

If there are two mommies or two daddies for children in the classroom--that doesn't even imply homosexuality because many children have step parents --and thus 2 moms or 2 dads. The discussion need not be entertained. We don't need books featuring gay penguins and children with gay parents. That's not the prerogative or duty of the teacher --to promote as normal something that most of us don't want our children to view as normal or as something they might like to do with their best friends some day.

children can be taught kindness without teaching them that it's ok to be gay.

Chuck O'Connor said...

Well said Gandy.

Barb said...

you're obviously prejudiced!

Chuck O'Connor said...

Hi Barb,

No prejudice. I understand Gandolf's comments. Yours I find confusing.

I hope you are well.

Peace to you.

Barb said...

Well, gee willikers, let me try again!

Gandy was saying that we should teach kdgtn about tolerance for gays just as we should teach them about world peace.

I said we shouldn't teach them about EITHER as such.
We should teach them to be kind, to not bully and ridicule --and to have peace with one another. To be obedient would be good, too.

Because, people who get on soap boxes about "world peace" bring up images of "war protesters" and opposing wars and national defense. Terrorism is a fact they may not need to hear about yet. Not all parents would appreciate a pacifist emphasis/theme in elem. school.

Similarly, people who are pushing the gay penguin story and the "my two dads" stories --are pushing that it is ok to be gay --that gayness is just one way of being "different" ---and not all parents would appreciate the introduction of the THOUGHT of homosexuality in kdgtn. Especially considering the natural preference kids have for close friendship with members of their own sex at that age. They don't want their kids to think this is normal, desirable, or something they may wish to consider for themselves. They don't want them to play "wedding" or "house" with gay characters --which play would be abnormal for children.

Do you now understand me, Fellahs?

Chuck O'Connor said...

Sorry Barb,

Still seems pretty confusing.

It's all about your premise.

It doesn't register as anything other than a paranoid delusion.

I don't put much stock in it and I don't know who it serves (except your imagined understanding of who you think god is).

Like I said, have a good day.

Peace,

Chuck

Gandolf said...

Hi Barb and Chuck hope you and families etc,are all happy and well.

I have waited to hear from you both first,because maybe sometimes i do have abit too much to say.This probably stems from my interest and passion of the subject in question.

Im dont want to put that forward as an excuse but as a explanation in hope of some understanding.And the best i can do is to try and keep on learning.


Barb you said.."I know you didn't bring up terrorism--but you suggested promoting "world peace" in kdgtn. I said we should promote kindness, peace, tolerance of differences, etc --but not be explicit to the point of being anti-military/war-protesting liberal types who are against national defense and the war on terrorism, etc. considering that some parents would not agree with that view"

1,No where do i see where i have said anything about promotion of anti-military/war.Please point mt to where i have or please stop suggesting i suggest stuff just to make me sound worse.God wouldnt be happy with this would he?.I always thought he liked honesty specially from those who claim to be his followers?.

How ever (maybe) with promotion of peace hopefully some day (maybe) this peace might become more likely to be actually possible.

I note once again you seem to feel that the rights of OUR WORLD should be overuled by the "considering that some parents would not agree with that view"

Is what matters the MOST in this world only what "some parents" think?.When its OUR WORLD.

Did jesus only care about himself and his mates? ...I suggest you suggest him to be a thoughtless selfish person,my (opinion) only going by what you seem to be suggesting.Is your god happy with this?.

"So it's sufficient to teach children to have peace and kindness among themselves."

How can likely ever have world peace happen if its thought to be sufficent to just teach children to have peace and kindness among THEMSELVES??

"If there are two mommies or two daddies for children in the classroom--that doesn't even imply homosexuality because many children have step parents --and thus 2 moms or 2 dads. The discussion need not be entertained."

Barb do you really believe this? ...Have you thought about it throughly and very honestly, (remembering) to first put aside any indoctrination of others?.

Do you honestly believe the kids of modern today are still so gullable and slow learning?.Do you think they dont get taught things AS WELL by older siblings and friends etc including others at kindy?.

May i suggest though i think you are obviously very inteligent!,i still cant help feeling (maybe) you seem you are more gullable than many very young children.Please dont take this as meant as a insult!,im just being honest and admit i could be very wrong.

"That's not the prerogative or duty of the teacher --to promote as normal something that most of us don't want our children to view as normal or as something they might like to do with their best friends some day.

children can be taught kindness without teaching them that it's ok to be gay."

Oh i see so like we could also not teach that mental disorder is ok,and still expect our children will likely grow up being kind to mental people ...I dont get it ... Its just like it sounds real great, but seems it wouldnt really (very likely) work that well.

"you're obviously prejudiced!"

Who`s prejudiced ?.Pot/kettle??

Gandolf said...

(Sorry ended up talking to much again :( ...had to make it two posts)

"Gandy was saying that we should teach kdgtn about tolerance for gays just as we should teach them about world peace.

I said we shouldn't teach them about EITHER as such.
We should teach them to be kind, to not bully and ridicule --and to have peace with one another. To be obedient would be good, too."

To have peace with one another,but not muslims for instance specially muslims over seas including ones that dont bomb people that just cant really do much to help what happens around them.

I see! said the blind man ...But i cant see much peace.

"Because, people who get on soap boxes about "world peace" bring up images of "war protesters" and opposing wars and national defense. Terrorism is a fact they may not need to hear about yet. Not all parents would appreciate a pacifist emphasis/theme in elem. school."

This is where things get a little interesting...Terrorism ..How does one define terrorism ? .

As far as i can work out terrorism comes from ..Middle English terrour, from Old French terreur, from Latin terror, from terrēre, to frighten.

Who frightened who first?.Who first felt pressure?

Im not gonna say i know for sure thats for sure.I dont know enough and even though im no longer a believer i stil know what the bible says about bearing false witness etc etc..Do you feel comfortable and good about casting the first stone here Barb? ....After you do are you sure your god will be totally happy about it?.

Dont get me wrong i really really hate terrorism!,but i also love honesty and fairness and understanding etc.

"Especially considering the natural preference kids have for close friendship with members of their own sex at that age. They don't want their kids to think this is normal"

Well well well ..kids have a natural preference ... But as they get older you would like to demonize it ...And suggest it as abnormal.

"Well, gee willikers"...and then you wonder why some/many folks think you are actually into "gaycism." .

Go figure!.

Chuck O'Connor said...
"Sorry Barb,

Still seems pretty confusing.

It's all about your premise"

I do agree with here you Chuck ...Even though very likely Barb and her so called christian friends will not like it.They wont bother to think much about it ..We will be considdered simply as just "obviously prejudiced!"

And yet doesnt it (seem) rather blatant and very obvious ... That as far as they are concerned this world is mostly all about the i we as in them ..

Best wishes to all.

Chuck O'Connor said...

Good to hear from you Gandy

Gandolf said...

Chuck Same here, and i enjoyed to read through that "Common Sense" coversation of the "The Genetic Fallacy" logic thing.

Pretty sure it was you that was also taking part in the conversation.May have been wrong.

But anyway i just read silently and tried to take everything in that everyone was saying,because i know there is much i need to considder and learn.

Maybe im not totally thick hopefully :) .... But i sure didnt learn that well,but then i was put off schooling at a young age because the religos i was involved with had mad ideas they felt god wanted them to uphold.

And at school we werent very well liked,not that i blame the school kids because the beliefs made us look arrogant and ignorant and self rightious and nasty.

So long story short,i left school and home even before i was of the age that the law really allowed for.Some said look we will get the police,i said sweet as!just be ready to keep on ringing them time and time again.

Because im leaving no matter what.Ive had a guts full of being disliked for such utter stupidity.

So Chuck if i say stuff thats mad stupid or wrong please dont ever feel you cant tell me ....Now im much older and have my hands on a PC ive realized i really do enjoy learning.

Like you said we dont need to agree about everything.But its good to here others opinions.

Cheers Chuck

Chuck O'Connor said...

Barb,

You mentioned step parents in one of your posts. Do you consider divorce okay? How do you santion that and hate homosexuality? Just wondering . . .

Barb said...

About step parents --I was saying that kids will hear about two fathers or two mothers from kids who have step-parents --and many will experience it --but they don't need to be "taught" that some men want to marry men and some women want to marry women nor taught that this is normal life --as sweet as two male penguins trying to mate.

Yes, it is natural for children to prefer same sex children as their close friends. It's a normal phase of development. It is NOT normal for them to eroticize these friendships at puberty and indulge in fantasy about romance or sexual intimacy with the same sex. I wouldn't want my child confused by people who tell them that it's just as normal to marry one of the same sex as to marry one of the opposite sex. That there is nothing wrong with it.

There is something very abnormal and wrong with homsexual inclination, preference, and indulgence --and gay marriage. And it's sad and tragic to see kids go this route --never to be parents and grand parents, growing older with one of the opposite sex according to God's design for their bodies.

I'm considered cruel and hateful to say this, but it is crueler to mislead children into a life that is highly risky for STD's, promiscuity, and many many problems. I believe the lifestyle is one of sexual addiction for those who aren't just oriented but homosexually active.

Yes, adultery is a sin and divorce is a sad result of people not succeeding at living together in harmony. Jesus denounced divorce. But many children have to learn to live with it and adapt. It's harmful to them --as is gay parenting in which divorce is usually involved --since with gay marriage a child is deprived of one of his bio-parents in the home --as in most all divorce.

Gandalf didn't you say that world peace should be taught in schools along with homosexuality? I'm saying that neither should be taught AS SUCH. If a school wants to teach that way, my kids wouldn't be in it.

that's not to say that
world peace isn't a good objective --I'm just musing as to what that means to some people--to some it means you go out and protest war by blowing up university buildings! I believe in self-defense and peace keeping and nation building. I don't believe in isolationism --avoiding the suffering and warring nations --nor do I believe in pre-emptive war for the reasons most nations start wars --nor do I believe in ignoring a growing menace with cruel lunatic leaders developing nuclear weapons.

Chuck O'Connor said...

Barb,

Once again you cite no observable or falsifiable data to make your point and therefore once again you strenthen my claim that faith only animates the fallacy known as the "availability heuristic". Thanks for the object lesson.

Gandolf said...

Hi Barb you said...."Gandalf didn't you say that world peace should be taught in schools along with homosexuality? I'm saying that neither should be taught AS SUCH. If a school wants to teach that way, my kids wouldn't be in it."

No maybe you dont quite understand what i meant.

I dont suugest it should be taught that gay relationships are a great idea and that it should be an ideal that everyone should inspire towards having.That would be teaching gay lifestyles as the best option.

No i merely suggest that it should be taught that folks who happen choose this lifestyle are ok ...They should not be disliked or riduculed and demonized as have also such things as mental problems etc in the past.

When this nastiness happens the animals are the actual people who wont seem to accept the FACT that not everyone will ever be likely to always be the same.These nasty thoughtless people with such low ammounts of understanding and far to higher self image,are the ones we need to give a jolly good spanking!! in future....(in my opinion)...We gotta snip em in the budd...they cause far to much extreme hate and divisions....(by the way the spanking etc bit is meant as analogy im dont really like violence)

And Barb why does teaching world peace as a good idea to try to work towards,have to totally dismiss the fact that we still need to be able and quite prepared to protect ourselves from attack if need be?.And even go after attackers if need be also.

Barb you seem to mean well and all,but i cant help thinking maybe your thoughts are always thinking and stuck fast in the zones of the extreme.I say teach people not to hate gays,you automaticly think i mean suggest it as the best life everyone should wish to look forward to having.

I say teach peace as a good idea,straight away you think im saying we shouldnt protect ourselves from harm either.

I just dont understand?

Please explain.

Barb said...

And Barb why does teaching world peace as a good idea to try to work towards,have to totally dismiss the fact that we still need to be able and quite prepared to protect ourselves from attack if need be?.And even go after attackers if need be also.

Teaching world peace DOESN'T have to mean what a liberal means by it. But I am leery of a world peace emphasis in the hands of a liberal teacher.

Yes, as I keep repeating, we should teach children to treat all people kindly, regardless of differences --but the method chosen for promoting tolerance toward homosexuals is the method of CELEBRATING homosexuals and featuring them in stories which are written to condone and promote and role model a lifestyle that many people do not approve --any more than they would approve other sexual proclivities outside the male-female marriage unit.

E.G. we still would NOT feature a story about father-daughter incest in kdgtn--even though the high school my kids attended had such a book on the h.s. English teacher's reading list, to their shame.

SO FAR, we would not feature a story about "My father's mistress," or "Mary and Agnes Are Prostitutes" or "My life as a Porn Star." But we do know schools promoting books about "my two dads" and the gay penguins and
"Jesse's Skirt" about a boy wanting to dress as a girl.

I'm saying that we shouldn't even be defining homosexual or transgenders or teaching about these abnormalities at all in elementary school--any more than we'd teach these books I created above on other sexual lifestyles.

All we should say is that no one should call others names nor be unkind to anyone. And if the subject of homosexuality comes up, if I were a teacher, I'd say it's not nice to ridicule people by calling them names of any kind --and that we shouldn't presume anything about other people's sexual interests.

I would say there are two kinds of people, boys and girls and that boys grow up to be the dads and the husbands --and the girls grow up to be the moms and the wives --according to the bodies we are given. Those parents who want to encourage their children toward transgendering and homosexuality, may do so in the privacy of their homes.

Gandolf said...

"Teaching world peace DOESN'T have to mean what a liberal means by it. But I am leery of a world peace emphasis in the hands of a liberal teacher"

Barb you sure?? you didnt mean to say .. oh i dont know ...Say something like... teaching world peace doesnt have to include being peaceful towards Muslims,those nasty pricks whos religious faith beliefs i happen to personally hate ... :)

We shouldnt have any reason to not be a bit weary of peace in the hands of the unliberals?

The unliberals of this world specially the christian ones are the ones we can actually thank the most for all the present wonderful great huge large endless ammounts of world peace we already actually see?

Barb said...

O? you think the Christians are responsible for Islamic terrorism? and their chronic wars with each other? Give me a break!!! They BELIEVE in world domination with sharia law --and the manifest destiny of world wide Islamic government. And are multiplying quickly to achieve that end --occupying everywhere--with pockets of terrorists and terrorist sympathizers in their enclaves.

While we watch The Family Guy and celebrate sexual diversity and childlessness.

Christians believe that Christ will come and establish His rule on the earth--but not with human warfare as the means. Humans will be at war but not under the leadership of Christ. We know that warfare is not the means of conversion; radical Islamists think it is.

Warfare, however, can be a necessary means to liberation of oppressed peoples, national defense, and restraint of evil and tyranny in the world.

The Middle east has been repressive, backward, hostile, hateful, miserable --for a long time --and it wasn't the Christians fault--or the Jews. There are peace lovers within their people groups, but their opposition is so frightening in their ferocity that the peaceful ones cannot ascend to power without help --so far. And I'm not convinced that the devout Muslims who are peaceful don't share the same ultimate expectation of world wide Islam as promoted by the terrorists among them.

Chuck O'Connor said...

Barb,

Based on your comments you might want to check out a book by a guy named Philip Berman called "Liberalism and Terror". I think you would like it (really, not being sarcastic).

Gandolf said...

Barb ...terrorism sickens me ..I hate it ...We here in NZ have just sent some specialist troups over to try to help if we can....When ever i see terrorist bombs and the coffins of American troups and others etc getting carried out,it honestly breaks my heart.I think of all the families that will no longer see their loved ones.

I see not and will never try looking for excuses of such nasty problems,least of all for those who blow up and kill innocent folks just living life.

But however if we are ever to be able to avoid such problems again in the future,surely we must try to think about it and find ways to try to understand a little more if we can. And our understanding must be about involving honesty as well.


As a Kiwi i dont know enough of all the ins and outs and truth of all matters involved.On top of that im no scholar.

But one thing i know is quite often there is two sides or more to every story.One thing i know is if a dog gets kicked enough sooner or later its likely to bite.

Like i said i dont know enough about all the actual facts about everything thats gone down.So its not right for me to decide either way,i should not try laying all blame on one side.

Like you i dont think much of the Muslim way of life...For instance i dont think women get treated so fair...I think stoning people to death is barbaric...There is much i dont feel is very nice.

But if there was manipulative tactics going on ...And pressure was being used by ways of finance etc behind the scenes...Then this is just as wrong in my books.

Im no longer a christian ...but still think the book holds some of humans good knowledge long learned.

One such good knowledge is that sometimes you reap that what you sow.

There is things we dislike about certain folks and their lifestyles... but to bring about change we must be very careful how we go about it ...And often the best way is by use of leading by example ....That way folks choose the change for themselves if they wish.

I dont condone violence at ALL Barb,i do look to try to understand how it might happen though ...So in future it can hopefully be avoided as much as possible.

Barb said...

AHA! YOU are the New Zealand blogger on my site meter!

Now there's a place I'd like to visit!

Gandalf, I never thought you were defending terrorism in your mention of world peace. and I agree that we should look at history and causes of war in hopes of not repeating history--but it's incredible to me that we are VERY VERY violent as a world --here in the 21st c. Lots of murders as well as wars. What the Nazis did just in the last century is hard to believe. But I DO believe it --and the Bible says there will be wars and rumors of wars all the way until He returns. And for now, it's the Muslims who lead in being a threat to world peace --with No. Korea right behind them.

And let's not think that all wars are because someone nipped at the dog until he snapped! You might say that's why WE went into Iraq, however. Sadam's was certainly a terrorist nation willing to harbor, aid and abet terrorists--striving to have a nuclear weapons program --who had gassed the Kurds with WMD and threatened to assassinate Geo. HW Bush --who had invaded Kuwait --whose leader we should have deposed then --as so many of his citizens hoped we would do. Hussain and family were WMD's themselves.

We cannot know peace without the Lordship of Christ in our hearts --not personal peace or world peace. Sin always has somebody stirring the pot and preventing peace.

How old are you, by the way? Why don't you set up a profile --or did you?

Gandolf said...

Ahaaa, :)

Barb,yeah you should visit NZ,most people over here like folks from the states.Most folks are still pretty friendly overall really,but like anywhere we do have some problems too.Do you notice how in olden days when societies were younger and more close knit there was less problems.My opinion is faiths have done a lot to split and divide communities by faith beliefs,it is especially obvious in colonized tribal countries where most often faiths are those that often move in first.When faiths teach folks to shun and withdraw from each other etc over faith,its only natural this is bred out into communities as well making them all less caring and unthoughtful of each other.Progression of crime follows.

I just hope us getting into helping out against the war on terror in a way now of including (armed combat), doesnt backfire and we have somebody come here next and have reason to bomb us too!,that sadly might change some folks thoughts about feelings of folks from the U.S.A

Look Barb like i said i cant judge either way,because i really (dont know enough)of the actual absolute facts.And i do agree its hard to define between what honest fact and fiction,but then that works both ways!.And it just seems silly that Muslims with little chance against the might of the U.S.A ...would simply attack for absolutely no reason at all.And i dont know what you think? about it all, but i cant see how it can be honestly said the might of the U.S.A hasnt at least been a little pushy here and there in places.Maybe at times with riches in mind,maybe at times for position of power.Notice i say maybe.

Barb let me ask if you used your money and power on some poorer folks down the road to gain an advantage or even help somebody else to,would you really be that surprised if they retaliated in some way that might even seem rather nasty and barbaric?.Why would they?,well what other choice would they really have against the power of money and might.Lay down and let folks run right over them?.

Oh yeah i sure do know about Korea and many other mounting problems in many other places...All the more reason to be so very very careful and sure things are done honestly and very fairly.Specially when money for war is very very costly and a never ending pot of gold is a complete myth.Oh yes Barb us kiwis think about these very things you can be very sure.We know for sure that folks from the U.S.A cannot be continued to be sent to war to be killed,and forever be replaced with plenty more!!!!.

"We cannot know peace without the Lordship of Christ in our hearts --not personal peace or world peace. Sin always has somebody stirring the pot and preventing peace."

Well Barb i know it wont sit so well with you being a christian and all....But history reminds us Christians with this supposed christ in their hearts have sure been the cause of lack of peace many more times than once before.


"How old are you, by the way? Why don't you set up a profile --or did you?"

Dont you just love mysterys?.. :)

I did set up a blog about conservation...But then realized conservation wasnt really worth worring about so much, until other more important things hopefully got sorted out a bit more first.

Barb said...

There really is a battle between good and evil --as depicted by Tolkein.

You seem to think --as so many today-- that all people would be nice and get along if it weren't for religion behind all wars. That evil is not real apart from religion?

I haven't seen a humane atheistic society yet!

Gandolf said...

Hi Barb you said..."You seem to think --as so many today-- that all people would be nice and get along if it weren't for religion behind all wars. That evil is not real apart from religion?

I haven't seen a humane atheistic society yet!"

Well i certainly dont hate faithful folk and i dont want to try and blame them for everything thats gone wrong in our world.That i feel would be a little unfair,but i really dont think religion has helped much.

And statistics even seems to suggest religion isnt so good.

Check these out

Global peace index http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi/results/rankings.php

State of the world importance of religion . http://www.gallup.com/poll/114211/Alabamians-Iranians-Common.aspx

Now far be it from me to be the judge of such things

But Correlate some of the statistics and it sure seems lack of religion and faith plays a big part in matters.Quite a number of less religious countries are up in the top of the most peaceful and happy etc.

I forgot what the quote/saying is that im thinking of but it goes something like this.Maybe you or Chuck know what one im thinking of.

Saying:Bad people do bad things,but nothing makes good humans act real bad quite the same as religion does.

Isnt it a bit like global warming for instance.We can turn away from it,decide its complete rubbish and we dont believe it and just go laa laa laa im not listening for as long as we wish to.

But if its actually real and honestly true,no amount of laa laa laa laaing is going to stop it actually being factual.

Im a agnostic/atheist,do you really think id likely treat you so inhumanely? :)

Gandolf said...

Sorry the connection for global peace index was missing some.

Here it is http://www.visionofhumanity.org/gpi/results/rankings.php

Gandolf said...

It wont seem to post it but it needs to have-> php on the end of it to work

Barb said...

Gandalf, I'll look at your link later

gotta run

for now, though, YOU don't blog inhumanely--some of the atheists are really nasty --saying Christians should be locked up --and they won't post our comments no matter how civil we are and on topic --won't post disagreement --but will post our personal info, names and addresses, on line --and photo of my house in one case --and spam our blogs with articles on obsessive compulsive disorder --and make insults about my body size --and post unflattering photos and call me "the blob" --blocking from their blogs. Stuff like that is what I get from those kindly humane atheists. Bully tactics. Just plain nastiness.

Who has killed millions in this past century? atheistic communists and atheistic Nazis (who sometimes are misnamed Christians but they were in no way following Christianity --even though some hypocritical church members were reportedly in their numbers.)

I've known Christians who hate --some of them are relatives --but Christ will not tolerate that. It's not the religion that's lacking in such cases; it's the people who are lacking in true Chrsitianity.

Barb said...

Christianity doesn't CAUSE hatred, bigotry and war. Satan does through our egos,our dislikes, our prejudices, our selfishness, paranoia. Christianity can be misused --but people who KNOW the Bible know that pride and hatred and selfishness are sins. Without Christianity to inform our consciences, we can be even more pride-ful, hateful and selfish --as proven in Communism, Naziism --and even in secular liberal societies.

Gandolf said...

"won't post disagreement --but will post our personal info, names and addresses, on line --and photo of my house in one case --and spam our blogs with articles on obsessive compulsive disorder --and make insults about my body size --and post unflattering photos and call me "the blob" --blocking from their blogs. Stuff like that is what I get from those kindly humane atheists. Bully tactics. Just plain nastiness."

Hi Barb so sorry to hear this stuff.However i now know quite a few agnostics/atheists etc, yet never have i seen or heard one to be quite so inclined to be as nasty as this.Infact many i have found are extremely understanding and kind.

And if i did they sure wouldnt get my backing for such nasty behaviour,they sure would receive a reply of just what i thought of their nasty attitude.And im quite sure its a good guess Chuck would feel much the same way.


L.o.L ...Chuck is such a easy going mighty fine guy,he even puts up with me hogging space on his blog.

Thanks Chuck!!.... And Just remember to simply let me know if im pushing the welcome at all.

Chuck O'Connor said...

Gandy,

You are always welcome here.

Barb, I'm sorry you've been bullied. You will not be bullied by me.

Be good to yourself.

Peace,

Chuck

Barb said...

Compassion accepted!