|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/29/2008 07:23:35 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
You might be right but it makes it no less true. |
You are missing a big "IMO".
Your opinion, your belief. Different to that of every other person on the planet in some way or another, so please don't elevate it to the status of fact.
|
|
|
|
04/29/2008 07:57:27 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
BTW the boy in the video should not be forced into the role of an adult and to me he should be put in a better situation where he could grow and learn and be a child. |
Why? The child has been taught unquestioningly to believe in a god in a bi-polar world of the saved and the condemned. If his father is right, then surely this is how all children should be taught so as to maximise the number of the "saved"?
On the other hand maybe you are sickened by the indoctrination into religious fundamentalism of a child who is incapable of understanding the issues and his exploitation by the people whom he trusts most.
Does it make you uncomfortable that children learn to believe not out of conviction, but because they are mentally vulnerable to persuasion by the people on whom they are biologically dependent? Should religions target children when they are vulnerable, or wait until they are mentally equipped to make their own assessment?
|
|
|
|
04/29/2008 10:28:19 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Should religions target children when they are vulnerable, or wait until they are mentally equipped to make their own assessment? |
Now that has been happening for thousands of years and that is the absolute reason religion still is a force today. Do the latter and religion is forgotten in one or maybe two generations. It's the parents that need to change but who are the parents? The parents are the ones we're debating with on this forum and look how stubborn they are about their beliefs. Nothing will change for a long long time. How many more atheists are there today than there were 100 years ago? Who knows but i'm willing to bet there were less than today. In another hundred years there will be more and one day our numbers will be equal. Then the real fun will begin. |
|
|
|
04/30/2008 10:20:14 AM · #129 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
BTW the boy in the video should not be forced into the role of an adult and to me he should be put in a better situation where he could grow and learn and be a child. |
Why? The child has been taught unquestioningly to believe in a god in a bi-polar world of the saved and the condemned. If his father is right, then surely this is how all children should be taught so as to maximise the number of the "saved"?
On the other hand maybe you are sickened by the indoctrination into religious fundamentalism of a child who is incapable of understanding the issues and his exploitation by the people whom he trusts most.
Does it make you uncomfortable that children learn to believe not out of conviction, but because they are mentally vulnerable to persuasion by the people on whom they are biologically dependent? Should religions target children when they are vulnerable, or wait until they are mentally equipped to make their own assessment? |
re your other post: You are right it is IMO. I thought that was implied. Sorry for the confusion. I don't know exactly what goes on in other peoples heads but I have a lot of anecdotal type evidence to support my opinion.
The second paragraph describes my feelings on how the child is being raised. It is not right.
As far as how I teach my children(thus how I think children should be taught): I teach my children that God does exist and explain my experiences with Him. I encourage them to talk to God. I also teach them that their will come a day when they will have to examine things for themselves. They know that at one time I did not believe in God and they know that I now do. I have talked to them about my conversations on this forum with all of you. I teach them that Santa Claus is not real or the tooth fairy or easter bunny. We don't set up a tree for Christmas as this has nothing to do with Christ. I do not present a one sided view of things but lay out that different people have different beliefs and having said that-- here is what daddy thinks.
Do you have children? If so what did or what do you teach them in regards to God and religion?
|
|
|
|
04/30/2008 10:35:53 AM · #130 |
Part of a review from Books in Canada on Hitchens "God is Not Great".
When Christopher Hitchens appeared on Anderson Cooperâs CNN program shortly after the release of God is Not Great, Cooper introduced him in a rather apologetic, ingratiating tone: âHere on 360, we believe in giving all sides a chance to air their views; you, the viewer, can come to your own conclusions.â Hitchens had been invited to comment on the death of Jerry Falwell, and Cooper began by asking him, scarcely in the spirit of hard journalism, whether Falwell might have gone to heaven: âNo, and I think itâs a pity there isnât a hell for him to go to,â Hitchens replied icily, before delivering a sharp denunciation of Falwellâs attitudes and the cultural climate that had elevated them to credibility: âYou can get away with the most extraordinary offences to morality and truth in this country if you can just get yourself called âreverend.ââ He indicted CNN for allowing Falwell to appear on the network after the September 11th attacks and attribute them to divine wrath: âPeople like that should be out in the street, shouting and hollering with a cardboard sign, and selling pencils from a cup!â He described Falwell as a âChaucerian fraudâ who was guilty of teaching nonsense to children, who spoke of being ârapturedâ into heaven while all non-Christians went to hell, and âfawn[ed] on the worst elements in Israel, with his other hand pumping anti-Semitic innuendo into American politics.â
...A passage Hitchens selects from Orwellâs essay, âThe Prevention of Literatureâ, illustrates why he believes religion is âthe origin of totalitarianismâ:
âFrom the totalitarian point of view, history is something to be created rather than learned. A totalitarian state is in effect a theocracy, and its ruling caste, in order to keep its position, has to be thought of as infallible.â
Hitchens, who is known to have had some role in popularising the term âIslamic Fascismâ with regard to Islamism, typically writes of religion in highly political terms, and of rotten politics in religious ones; Christianity envisions a âcelestial dictatorshipâ, just as North Koreans are forced to adulate âthe Supreme Being and his Fatherâ (Kim Jong-Il and Kim Il-Sung).
This outlook carries him a long way in the polemical arena. His life as a writer in rough places has armed him with first-hand knowledge of the suffering caused by the religious bullies and butchers who have so often caused and exacerbated conflicts. In a chapter entitled âReligion Killsâ, he recalls with some satisfaction a discussion he had with the radio host Dennis Prager, in which his experiences helped him counter decisively one of the hostâs challenges:
âI was to imagine myself in a strange city as the evening was coming on. Toward me I was to imagine that I saw a large group of men approaching. Now-would I feel safer, or less safe, if I was to learn that they were just coming from a prayer meeting? [â¦] Just to stay within the letter âB,â I have actually had that experience in Belfast, Beirut, Bombay, Belgrade, Bethlehem, and Baghdad. In each case I can say absolutely, and can give my reasons, why I would feel immediately threatened if I thought that the group of men approaching me in the dusk were coming from a religious observance.â
Hitchens manages to cover a great number of religiously motivated sectarian conflicts, tortures, and killings in the city-by-city catalogue of shame that follows, but it becomes clear that his arguments from experience will get him only so far with the faithful. The great void that persists between atheists and religious believers comes from the fact that atheists tend to see enduring similarities among all religions, while believers are more likely to regard themselves as exceptions, and people of other faiths as essentially outré, beyond the pale. For an atheist, the argument with religion is a struggle against well-practised evasions: whatever crass or vulgar idea the non-believer assails, the believer claims to profess something else; whatever crimes or cruelties the faithless critic identifies, defenders of religion will try to blame the followers and not the holy books.
Given the (as Hitchens puts it) Ã la carte way in which believers tend to define their faiths, he necessarily puts forward a list of foundational criticisms to which they ought to answer:
âThere [are] four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum of servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking."
He adds elsewhere, (though he should have included it above), that:
âthe mildest criticism of religion is also the most radical and most devastating one. Religion is man-made.â
He also identifies, in a chapter entitled âReligion as Original Sinâ, some of the earliest and most corrupting religious precepts. He attacks the âdoctrine of blood sacrificeâ that invites adherents of three monotheisms to honour the willingness of Abraham to slaughter his son. He comments on the persistence of the almost ubiquitous idea of atonement through violence: the bloody rites of the Aztecs, the enforced âsuicideâ of Hindu widows, the Muslims who honour suicide âmartyrsâ, and the Christians who embrace the violent suffering of Jesus in order to lay phoney universal guilt on humanity. Worst of all in day-to-day terms, religions have made unreasonable demands of their followers, which have unsurprisingly encouraged religious leaders to make venal offers according to which the faithful may circumvent the rules:
âDonât do any work on the Sabbath yourself, but pay someone else to do it. Youâve obeyed the letter of the law: whoâs counting? The Dalai Lama tells us that you can visit a prostitute as long as someone else pays her. Shia Muslims offer âtemporary marriage,â selling men the permission to take a wife for an hour or two and then divorce her when they are done. Half of the splendid buildings in Rome would not have been raised if the sale of indulgences had not been so profitable.â
Hitchens sees obfuscation and charlatanism not just in the practices, but in the very origins of every faith he examines. Christianity features, like âalmost all religions,â
âa humble prophet or a prince who comes to identify with the poor [. . . ] what is this if not populism? It is hardly a surprise if religions choose to address themselves first to the majority who are poor and bewildered and uneducated.â
...In a chapter entitled âDoes Religion Make People Behave Better?â, he sets out the argument that moral behaviour simply does not depend on faith, but that faith can drive people to do ill in the name of some anachronistic dictate. On the debate circuit, Hitchens frequently challenges his audiences to name an ethical statement made or a moral action achieved by a believer that could not have been carried out by a non-believer. There are never any takers. Morality, he tells us, is innate. He recently gave a British radio host a secular corollary: âI can name you dozens of heroic German Stalinists who fought bravely against Hitler. It doesnât vindicate their Communism.â
God is Not Great has the tone of a manifesto. Hitchens adopts in his introduction a âweâ that suggests the solidarity of secular thinkers. He argues that the âlure of wonder and mystery and aweâ can best be met by art, literature, and science, and calls for a new Enlightenment. Hitchens attributes his bookâs popularity to a âchange in the zeitgeist,â in which non-believers have, like him, begun to assert themselves in the public sphere. Humanistic comforts, alas, are scarcely enough to resign most people to the horror of death, or to alleviate the âcondition that needs illusions,â of which Marx wrote. While Hitchens appears unsure of the future of non-belief-he sometimes describes religion as ineradicable and at others consigns it to âthe infancy of the speciesâ-he succeeds in demonstrating the great shame of religion: that its most consistent accomplishment has been to make its consolations the enemy of truth. |
|
|
|
04/30/2008 04:11:56 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
As far as how I teach my children(thus how I think children should be taught): I teach my children that God does exist and explain my experiences with Him. I encourage them to talk to God. I also teach them that their will come a day when they will have to examine things for themselves. They know that at one time I did not believe in God and they know that I now do. I have talked to them about my conversations on this forum with all of you. I teach them that Santa Claus is not real or the tooth fairy or easter bunny. We don't set up a tree for Christmas as this has nothing to do with Christ. I do not present a one sided view of things but lay out that different people have different beliefs and having said that-- here is what daddy thinks.
Do you have children? If so what did or what do you teach them in regards to God and religion? |
I taught my two boys that gods DO NOT exist, no exceptions, no maybes, nothing. They are made up by men to control others. I taught them that to believe in a god is to believe in fairy tales. I taught them that people who believe in a god are wasting their time and they should be concentrating on this life and not the next. They know and understand that and live their lives to the fullest. Whenever I mention a god they immediately tell me to shut up about it and to talk about something else. They have learnt well. I also taught them that people can believe what they want but that they need to scrutinize every single detail before making a choice. They know that religion is a tool and only that. It's used by parents to control their kids or used by priests, pastors, reverends, mullahs, rabbi to control the weak minded. <--- uhoh! I said something bad. It'll stay because that's what I believe.
Also, I jokingly say to my sons that if they ever start believing in gods, I will disown them. I would never do that but things wouldn't be the same that's for sure.
OK, now you can call me what you want for raising my kids that way. It isn't any different than what you did to your kids. |
|
|
|
04/30/2008 05:02:27 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
I also teach them that their will come a day when they will have to examine things for themselves. |
And;
Originally posted by Jac:
I also taught them that people can believe what they want but that they need to scrutinize every single detail before making a choice. |
Interesting. You're both saying the same thing here. That you'll teach your kids what you believe, but that also that they'll eventually have to make their own choice.
Would it not be more valuable to teach them how to be critical thinkers, make them aware of the beliefs that are out there, and then they can make their own free choice, without the baggage of any previous indoctrination.
Message edited by author 2008-04-30 17:03:01. |
|
|
|
04/30/2008 05:15:57 PM · #133 |
I find this thread highly offensive and I think it should be moved to Rant!
jk
I am wondering about the OP, I was not aware that not being Christian automatically made one an Atheist or Agnostic ;)
That said I guess I'm in the Agnostic ballpark, used to be a Christian. Now I do my own thing but I don't really think any of us will know until we know. :)
Message edited by author 2008-04-30 17:17:42. |
|
|
|
04/30/2008 07:05:28 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by Jac:
..... I jokingly say to my sons that if they ever start believing in gods, I will disown them. I would never do that but things wouldn't be the same that's for sure......It isn't any different than what you did to your kids. |
Well Jac, I think it is different. You have put a lot of pressure on your children to believe as you do, jokingly or not. What if you are wrong? |
|
|
|
04/30/2008 08:22:09 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by Jac:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
As far as how I teach my children(thus how I think children should be taught): I teach my children that God does exist and explain my experiences with Him. I encourage them to talk to God. I also teach them that their will come a day when they will have to examine things for themselves. They know that at one time I did not believe in God and they know that I now do. I have talked to them about my conversations on this forum with all of you. I teach them that Santa Claus is not real or the tooth fairy or easter bunny. We don't set up a tree for Christmas as this has nothing to do with Christ. I do not present a one sided view of things but lay out that different people have different beliefs and having said that-- here is what daddy thinks.
Do you have children? If so what did or what do you teach them in regards to God and religion? |
I taught my two boys that gods DO NOT exist, no exceptions, no maybes, nothing. They are made up by men to control others. I taught them that to believe in a god is to believe in fairy tales. I taught them that people who believe in a god are wasting their time and they should be concentrating on this life and not the next. They know and understand that and live their lives to the fullest. Whenever I mention a god they immediately tell me to shut up about it and to talk about something else. They have learnt well. I also taught them that people can believe what they want but that they need to scrutinize every single detail before making a choice. They know that religion is a tool and only that. It's used by parents to control their kids or used by priests, pastors, reverends, mullahs, rabbi to control the weak minded. <--- uhoh! I said something bad. It'll stay because that's what I believe.
Also, I jokingly say to my sons that if they ever start believing in gods, I will disown them. I would never do that but things wouldn't be the same that's for sure.
OK, now you can call me what you want for raising my kids that way. It isn't any different than what you did to your kids. |
On the contrary I sincerely would be disappointed if you didn't teach your children what you believe. You wouldn't be a very good parent if you didn't. I teach my children what I believe also and would not expect anything less from an atheist who loves his children and wishes to give them the best start in life that he/she can. When that goes beyond teaching and ends up placing the child in an adult situation that he/she should not be in--that is something else altogether. From my perspective when the child reaches adulthood (or even before) they will begin to think for themselves anyway and come to their own conclusions. I was never taught about God growing up but neither was I taught atheism. I do remember (really a memory of a memory) of going to Sunday school at a Catholic church for a very brief time but that was it. I hope that your children come around to my point of view but I'm sure that you also would hope that mine come to yours. Let's face it we have influence over our children but eventually they become their own persons. The most important thing we can do for them is love them unconditionally. If my son came to me and told me he was an atheist it would be a hard thing to deal with to say the least but I would not ever stop loving him. If your child came to you and told you he had been 'saved' would you really love him any less?
|
|
|
|
04/30/2008 09:15:36 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by Jac:
..... I jokingly say to my sons that if they ever start believing in gods, I will disown them. I would never do that but things wouldn't be the same that's for sure......It isn't any different than what you did to your kids. |
Well Jac, I think it is different. You have put a lot of pressure on your children to believe as you do, jokingly or not. What if you are wrong? |
Sounds to me like they will have lived responsible lives, loving their families, caring for their fellow humans and for the rest of the world in general. If your merciful and loving God sees fit to condemn them to eternal damnation for that, well, to paraphrase Groucho Marx, I for one don't want to be part of a religion which worships a God like that. Better to burn in Hell than worship a hypocritical, sadistic, egotistical tyrant ... :-( |
|
|
|
04/30/2008 09:25:23 PM · #137 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by Jac:
..... I jokingly say to my sons that if they ever start believing in gods, I will disown them. I would never do that but things wouldn't be the same that's for sure......It isn't any different than what you did to your kids. |
Well Jac, I think it is different. You have put a lot of pressure on your children to believe as you do, jokingly or not. What if you are wrong? |
Sounds to me like they will have lived responsible lives, loving their families, caring for their fellow humans and for the rest of the world in general. If your merciful and loving God sees fit to condemn them to eternal damnation for that, well, to paraphrase Groucho Marx, I for one don't want to be part of a religion which worships a God like that. Better to burn in Hell than worship a hypocritical, sadistic, egotistical tyrant ... :-( |
You know, you're upsetting Kirk Cameron (apparently the best spokesperson the supernaturalists have to offer). |
|
|
|
05/01/2008 12:52:23 AM · #138 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by Jac:
..... I jokingly say to my sons that if they ever start believing in gods, I will disown them. I would never do that but things wouldn't be the same that's for sure......It isn't any different than what you did to your kids. |
Well Jac, I think it is different. You have put a lot of pressure on your children to believe as you do, jokingly or not. What if you are wrong? |
Sounds to me like they will have lived responsible lives, loving their families, caring for their fellow humans and for the rest of the world in general. If your merciful and loving God sees fit to condemn them to eternal damnation for that, well, to paraphrase Groucho Marx, I for one don't want to be part of a religion which worships a God like that. Better to burn in Hell than worship a hypocritical, sadistic, egotistical tyrant ... :-( |
Here, here!
My own final "letting go of God" came about when I finally made the realization that if I accepted everything in the Bible and the Christian idea of God as true, I was then faced with the worship of a petty and decidedly small deity, one that resembled nothing so much as an impetuous and mean-spirited toddler delighting in its own cruelty. Not that this aspect of god should be surprising, given that it's a creation of our own primordial psyche reflecting all the ignorance and tribalism of our collective past, but its a startling revelation (no pun intended) for a kid raised in the Christian tradition.
I have my quarrels with Hitchens, but in one respect he is most overwhelmingly right - God is not great.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2008 01:39:09 AM · #139 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by Jac:
..... I jokingly say to my sons that if they ever start believing in gods, I will disown them. I would never do that but things wouldn't be the same that's for sure......It isn't any different than what you did to your kids. |
Well Jac, I think it is different. You have put a lot of pressure on your children to believe as you do, jokingly or not. What if you are wrong? |
Sounds to me like they will have lived responsible lives, loving their families, caring for their fellow humans and for the rest of the world in general. If your merciful and loving God sees fit to condemn them to eternal damnation for that, well, to paraphrase Groucho Marx, I for one don't want to be part of a religion which worships a God like that. Better to burn in Hell than worship a hypocritical, sadistic, egotistical tyrant ... :-( |
Here, here!
My own final "letting go of God" came about when I finally made the realization that if I accepted everything in the Bible and the Christian idea of God as true, I was then faced with the worship of a petty and decidedly small deity, one that resembled nothing so much as an impetuous and mean-spirited toddler delighting in its own cruelty. Not that this aspect of god should be surprising, given that it's a creation of our own primordial psyche reflecting all the ignorance and tribalism of our collective past, but its a startling revelation (no pun intended) for a kid raised in the Christian tradition.
I have my quarrels with Hitchens, but in one respect he is most overwhelmingly right - God is not great. |
Your post brings me to a question I have been wanting to ask to those of you who were religious and have since converted, for lack of a better term, to atheism. Was your enlightenment a gradual conversion over a period of time or was it a sudden epiphany? Also, what level of guilt did you feel, if any, for your disassociation with your religion and belief in god. Was there a mourning period, as if you lost a part of your identity, or did you feel pure elation to your new found truth, maybe a mixture of both at first? The one common theme I have read noticed in your replies, at least those of you who have contributed in the Science and Theology thread, was your inquisitive nature and how it brought you to a crossroads with your religion and it's hierarchy. The inability to receive answers to your questions, i would figure, would be one of the main reasons that lead you away from a belief in god, but was there any other factor in your life that contributed? Interesting thread, look forward to some sharing their experience. |
|
|
|
05/01/2008 09:42:24 AM · #140 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by David Ey:
Originally posted by Jac:
..... I jokingly say to my sons that if they ever start believing in gods, I will disown them. I would never do that but things wouldn't be the same that's for sure......It isn't any different than what you did to your kids. |
Well Jac, I think it is different. You have put a lot of pressure on your children to believe as you do, jokingly or not. What if you are wrong? |
Sounds to me like they will have lived responsible lives, loving their families, caring for their fellow humans and for the rest of the world in general. If your merciful and loving God sees fit to condemn them to eternal damnation for that, well, to paraphrase Groucho Marx, I for one don't want to be part of a religion which worships a God like that. Better to burn in Hell than worship a hypocritical, sadistic, egotistical tyrant ... :-( |
You know, you're upsetting Kirk Cameron (apparently the best spokesperson the supernaturalists have to offer). |
Thanks for the link... I listened to all of the videos on the debate. Either there was selective editing or the atheists didn't have the best people representing them imo. I've read better coming from you guys. I found it gratifying that Kirk and his friend used the same arguments that I had in science and theology(at least some of them). I assume you have watched the same. What did you think about it? Do you feel the atheist viewpoint was well represented?
Message edited by author 2008-05-01 09:57:15.
|
|
|
|
05/01/2008 10:34:24 AM · #141 |
| Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you... YOUR WORST NIGHTMARE! |
|
|
|
05/01/2008 10:39:09 AM · #142 |
First of all, is Kirk serious? It sounds like he's talking to and using 7 year old mentality. If it exists, it must be designed by someone? What kind of rationality is that? He uses a photo-shopped image of a crocoduck and expects people to laugh at it and call Darwin a fool for his theory. What an idiot! His tactics work on first graders, as we see in other videos of supposed evangelists teaching kids to not accept other theories. His simplistic views are way out of touch with reality and thus should be condemned as utter bulldung.
And the anchor who said he beat Dawkins... beat Dawkins? rofl Why are these debates always anchored by christians who openly admit they they are? These flop sided debates are entertainment, period. They draw great numbers to the channel and that's why they're almost always misrepresented on the atheist side, the good side must win, always. CNN = Christian News Network as for as I can tell. |
|
|
|
05/01/2008 11:56:33 AM · #143 |
No comments on God's almighty creation, the domesticated banana? (Incidentally, were it not for the banana's "non-slip grip", they'd be flying out of people's hands and causing widespread famine, chaos, and silent movie slapstick setups).
O'Rielly's on Fox, but it's all the same. To think that he and others like him consider themselves "journalists" would be reason for the throatiest of guffaws, if it were not so painfully sad. |
|
|
|
05/01/2008 12:06:07 PM · #144 |
Sorry, I didn't watch, but I have now. Kirk was laughing himself, probably in embarrassment. I remember seeing this years ago. What about the orange? You know those pesky oranges that are hard to peel. Who the heck made those, or wait, we're not supposed to peel them before eating or we're not supposed to eat them at all it seems.
Coconuts.......oh nevermind. ;\
|
|
|
|
05/01/2008 01:02:26 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by Louis:
No comments on God's almighty creation, the domesticated banana? (Incidentally, were it not for the banana's "non-slip grip", they'd be flying out of people's hands and causing widespread famine, chaos, and silent movie slapstick setups). |
What is there to be said. The Kirk Cameron stuff - and these arguments generally - exist as its own self-parody.
Message edited by author 2008-05-01 13:15:46. |
|
|
|
05/01/2008 01:21:05 PM · #146 |
This is pretty interesting. How to Convert an Atheist
I especially like the portion dealing with the complete lack of any scientific knowledge that was not already known at the time being included in holy texts. God could have saved a lot of pain and suffering just by sketching out the germ theory of disease, for example. |
|
|
|
05/01/2008 01:30:23 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by Louis:
No comments on God's almighty creation, the domesticated banana? |
Perhaps there is something to be said for the great banana-monster in the sky after all? |
|
|
|
05/01/2008 02:19:57 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by Jac:
Sorry, I didn't watch, but I have now. Kirk was laughing himself, probably in embarrassment. I remember seeing this years ago. What about the orange? You know those pesky oranges that are hard to peel. Who the heck made those, or wait, we're not supposed to peel them before eating or we're not supposed to eat them at all it seems.
Coconuts.......oh nevermind. ;\ |
God made pineapples to test our faith. |
|
|
|
05/01/2008 11:50:07 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by Louis:
No comments on God's almighty creation, the domesticated banana? (Incidentally, were it not for the banana's "non-slip grip", they'd be flying out of people's hands and causing widespread famine, chaos, and silent movie slapstick setups).
O'Rielly's on Fox, but it's all the same. To think that he and others like him consider themselves "journalists" would be reason for the throatiest of guffaws, if it were not so painfully sad. |
Not defending Bill necessarily but he does not categorize himself as a journalist but as a commentator like Rush Limbaugh.... and yeah the banana thing is a little ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
05/05/2008 02:27:52 PM · #150 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Originally posted by Louis:
No comments on God's almighty creation, the domesticated banana? (Incidentally, were it not for the banana's "non-slip grip", they'd be flying out of people's hands and causing widespread famine, chaos, and silent movie slapstick setups).
O'Rielly's on Fox, but it's all the same. To think that he and others like him consider themselves "journalists" would be reason for the throatiest of guffaws, if it were not so painfully sad. |
Not defending Bill necessarily but he does not categorize himself as a journalist but as a commentator like Rush Limbaugh.... and yeah the banana thing is a little ridiculous. |
Said categorization being completely self-serving. He and Rush both want to claim journalism cred until they get called on their sh*t - - then they're "just entertainers." |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 01:33:08 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 01:33:08 PM EDT.
|
