plain

I think they go together fine. Example: I believe that God created the Earth. I also believe the Earth is millions of years old. "Wait, how can you possibly believe both?" you ask. I think the reasoning that you can linearly "reverse engineer" a timeline, based on the supposed age of the book of Genesis is a logical fallacy (and that's not even taking into consideration my personal belief that the "7 days" it took God to create the world is metaphorical). The Bible and science can easily be integrated for a person that has faith. Um, not all religions believe Lilleth exists. But for those that do, I suppose God created her. See my earlier post, but just because Adam and Eve were the first people created doesn't mean they were the only people created.

Wow, lotsa folks posting "Gotcha" questions to try and "trick" BG's pastor into giving an "a-ha" answer. Some, (Jaffa Steve) believe that if her pastor even hesitates in his worm / heaven question, she should immediately leave her church. Dude, I would want my pastor to really think and reflect on ANY question I asked, and not just give me a kneejerk reaction. Vonhelzing, have you ever read the Bible? It says Adam and Eve were the first two people created, not the ONLY 2 people created. If Adam, Eve and their kids (They had far more than just 2, BTW) were the only ones, God wouldn't have had to mark Cain so other people wouldn't hurt him. Please read the book and reflect on it before you ask such easily answerable questions. BG, As I personally understand it, God encourages us to pray because he loves us. When we ask for stuff, God might not grant it (for reasons unknown to us), but he still wants us to ask. It's kinda like your children......they might ask for some weird / excessive stuff that might not be in their best interest to have, but you still enjoy the interaction between the two of you. Remember, prayer is much, much more than us asking for "stuff" from God. Depending on what religion you are, prayer can be viewed as your time to get back "in tune" with God, as a relaxful meditation, as a praise and worship session, or a respectful conversation with your heavenly father. Or all of these. BG, here are some questions that I have asked of my pastor: Can grace ever be "lost"? Are all sins equal under God....If not, what's the worst? What is your favorite Gospel and why?

What? Seriously? Because that would explain a LOT of your debating points to me.

That's really what I was wondering, in my awkward, plodding way: Are we getting hung up on words or issues?

Spoken like a woman from TN, heehee....J/K.....I'd want to clarify that they weren't in my state too. They're a bunch o' nuts. So, why do gays not want civil unions (with all applicable rights) legalized. Seriously, the right to co-habitate with all legal rights spouses have ....is that the end goal? Is it worth giving up the word "marriage" in favor of "civil union" if it achieves the goal? Or would gays see legalizing "civil unions" (again....with all legal rights....just using a different name) as a "seperate but equal" thing? I can kinda see both sides on that. I get what you're saying, but.....that's kinda the point of a democracy. The body votes for what they think is best for the whole. There will ALWAYS be minority dissenters, on every issue. And marriage has not yet been defined as a constitutional right. It may be, in the future (by the supreme court), and something tells me you'd be ok with THOSE individuals defining constitutional rights for everybody else. Well sure they can. They're the government. They don't HAVE to play fair. What about the supreme court's decision that government can seize private property to up tax revenues (by building new stuff)? That's discriminating against the individual, no? An analogy would be for white people suing the government because they pay for the college tuition of kids on the Indian Rez. "Why, they can't discriminate. If the government does X,Y, or Z for one group, they have to do it for all". Not really. The government sets the rules as they go (unless the specific "right" is protected by the constitution.....the government won't be able to force individual citizens to give room and board to soldiers, for example). That's why the cruxt of this arguement is to whether marriage is a "right" protected by the constitution. Personally, I think no, and each individual state should vote for themselves (I'm a states-rights' kind o' guy), but obviously others disagree.

It's also a social network site. When somebody uploads a photo to a personal album (say, a pic of their dog) to share with a friend (maybe they have the same type of dog in common), that pic also shows up on the homepage photos. So not all pics that you can see on the homepage were intended for everybody here. Make sense?

Wow! Sounds like he's right on track to keep it off. I wish him well.

Me too!! BAM!! Instant erection. Or was that TMI, like the whole valtrex / genital wart fiasco? Yeah! What tap said! I suspect she's off somewhere being awesome....probaly in cahoots with LosingJustMe... Woah! That's quite a career! And PJTP, I recently friended Lulu on facebook. Turns out she's pretty cute for a New York liberal transplant to Texas (I strangely didn't see any warts, so I had to remove mine as well). I'd have never thunk it. Don't tell her though......that would ruin my redneck rep.

I agree, he's a smart guy. I hope he doesn't let his ideology over-ride his intellect.....but the fact is, raising taxes in a recession is a political act, and not that smart (why cut company profits in a recession? That's almost certain to lead to more job losses). Again, that's a little simplistic. Enron was the poster child of capitalism gone bad, and it didn't tank the economy (although that is little consolation to the employees that lost their retirement). It was the housing bubble that really kicked the economy in the groin. Bush actually pushed for more regulation in housing, but Barney "Fannie Mae" Frank (and, it could be argued, congress in general) killed that. Heck even the banking bubble was related to housing... Here's the fundamental liberal / conservative battle line. The mindset like you stated above completely disregards the personal accountability that we all must take. If one makes $2000 / month, they can't afford a million-dollar home, no matter what banker or morgage broker says they can. BJean, capitalism works to protect the workers as well. In a capitalistic system, the workers can leave one job if another offers them a better deal. If the government gets in too heavily (like they're heading now.....automotive, banking, housing, health) there will be no alternative. No private business can ultimately compete with the government in a market system.

Vanessa Williams' photos were far racier than Prejean's. Williams had full nudity and simulated lesbian acts. Prejean doesn't even show nipple. I have a feeling that if there ARE topless photos, they'll leak out, regardless of the underage question. Meanwhile, if there are no topless photos for us to see, we have to take her word that there are no topless photos. But let's not kid ourselves....If she had done the politically correct thing, this would be waaaaaay less of an issue. [QOUTE=DownInSocal;1219029]The pictures are not the only way she has broke her contract. She has also been doing appearences and commercials without permission which is strictly forbidden in her contract. I'm with you on this one. The picture issue (as I understand it....maybe I'm wrong) is that she signed "no nude pics", and the pics she had done didn't show any nudity. However, she HAS launched into full-out spokeswoman mode, and I'm pretty sure that DOES violate her contract. Let's not kid ourselves AGAIN.....She is trying to "brand" herself for fame. Every single person in Hollywood would do the same thing, but she should be more honest about it. Because the entertainment field is more statistically gay than mainstream America. It would be analogous for an anti-gay radical (not me, ya smartasses) to experience discrimination when trying to shop in some San Francisco areas. I agree. There are religions that are CLEARLY hateful, and I have no problem mocking them (I'm thinking of the radical baptist church that protests soldiers' funerals and breaks up AIDS rallies....I think they're out of TN). It helps that I'm a conservative, and as such, everybody on here expects me to be intolerant and insensitive anyway. It's you liberal types that have to shoulder the "tolerant" load, heehee. I'm kidding. *nods head vigorously* Mmmmmm-Hmmmmmm...... I'm missing some teeth. Don't be a tooth-ist. True. I'm pro-life....but I wouldn't vote to overturn Roe V. Wade. I think there are some areas the government doesn't need to stick its nose into. I'm not scared of gay marriage in Texas (heck, even if it were legalized, that's ok with me too), but I STRONGLY feel that it should be voted state-by-state, by the people of the state.....and not by some judicial activists (pro OR con). That's a little simplistic. It's not being opposed on SOLELY religious grounds. The ones that do oppose it on religious grounds have probably heard both sides of the issue (unless they watch any Fox news, right BJean? ) unless they're Amish. I think this is a different issue. I would vote against gay marriage, but I have absolutely no problem with the institution of "civil unions" that bestow legal rights upon same sex couples. Petty? Maybe.....but I suspect a LOT of people feel this way. Sometimes I wonder if there is a compromise to be made here. But that's kinda the cruxt of the debate: Is marriage a constitutionally protected right? (Heck, is HEALTHCARE? but that's for another thread, lol) Privacy is....marriage and abortion are a little more "gray".

Hey, I'm all in favor for boob jobs. I was referring to early semi nude pics that she took (topless, but arms covering the boobs) when she was 17 that somebody is now releasing (presumably to smear her reputation). All this because she answered a question that was asked of her.

Hi charger, good questions. You will actually start to feel ok pretty quickly (usually within a week, sometime 2. That seems to be the norm). I was back at work within 4 days. However, there is a restriction on how much weight you'll be able to lift for about 6 weeks (I'm thinking of your 2 1/2 yr old. You won't be able to pick up / carry her for awhile). Good luck.....let us know how it goes either way.

Bwahahaha....The men's room @ it's finest, as we bust on each other without mercy.....

I can only speak for me, but I daresay that most men are like me: that is, sex with a real live woman trumps any "flaws" you have. Men are visual creatures....if they are erect, then they're liking what they see (or are touching, if in the dark).

Ok, I'm the most guilty of this, but dang!! Look at how far off topic we are. I think we should maybe get back to the original thread of Miss Califorina (uh-oh....semi nude underage pics found!) or at least gay marriage in general. Do any of you agree, or is everybody happy with "letting 'er go" as is?

Yeah! When it's the MIL, instead of answering "hello", you should answer "hell-no"!! I'm a punny, punny guy.

Moses saw some of God (the back end, heehee). God covered Moses because no human could gaze at such power and holiness directly and live through it. Ok, I think we're getting to the meat here. I don't know of anybody personally, or know of any denomination that believes that God physically wrote the Bible with his own hand. I believe that when people say "God wrote the Bible", they mean that God directed each author divinely to physically write. Kinda like a metaphysical dictation. Like what you believe. If anybody following this thread believes God physically wrote the Bible, please jump in (or if you're shy, PM me). I'm interested in these matters and would like to discuss!!

That's a pretty good explanation. The problem I see with the label "pansexual" is that, unless they are attracted to another pansexual or in a non-monogamous relationship, they are eventually reduced to heterosexual or homosexual (depending on the person they are with at the time). Does that make sense?

The culprit revealed, LOL!!!!!!!!

Well actually, there is really no evidence that God didn't write the Bible. I mean....push come to shove, it's a matter of faith. You either believe that the document is an inspired document, or not. There is no proof strong enough to convert an unbeliever, or to dissuade a true believer. I wonder.....would you tell the same thing to a Jew that believed the Torah was dictated by God? Or a Muslim that believed the Qur'an was dictated by Gabriel?

How in the hell did a poll RE: a 2007 cruise get bumped today?!?

Oh, I live closer to you than that. I reside in the metropolis of Douglassville. You know you like it.... She's a little too "muscle-y" for me (I know, y'all really care, right....lol). I find it fascinating.....the difference between what men find physically attractive and what women THINK men would find physically attractive.

That's your only quirk.......riiiiiiiiiiight I had this conversation with LuluC the other day (sea-ment pond) and she fessed up that she didn't watch BH!! WTH is wrong with you non-hillbilly watching people?!? Me too, except on my FB page you can see me applying Valtrex to my warts.

That's true. Personally, I don't get the whole "Larry the Cable Guy" thing. I don't think he's funny....but he sure cashes a great big ol' check at the "unfunny" bank every week!!

What? Me? I know. But my point is, if you want to be known as a tolerant person, mocking somebody else's religion is prolly not a good strategy.......especially when the core beliefs are pretty close. Example: Joe - I believe that some of the Bible is literally true. Fred - I believe all of it is literally true. Joe - You're a fool. I could not agree more. It's human nature to create a us / them division.