Anti-gay American cleric banned from UK for inciting hatred

[Cap'n Cat]

Never shoulda took God out and let the niqqers in public schools.

[JoltinJoe]

Dude, that joke, it like never gets old.

[D1B]

I'm participating in anger management therepy. I've been asked by my therepist to get feedback on how I'm doing.

Please help me and give me your thoughts on my behavior on this thread. Thanks in advance.

[dbackjon]

I'm participating in anger management therepy. I've been asked by my therepist to get feedback on how I'm doing.

Please help me and give me your thoughts on my behavior on this thread. Thanks in advance.

You and C-man using the same therapist?

[ASUMountaineer]

1) Thanks for the compliment, I try to be reasonable (damn law school ). I agree, you don't need a church to be a christian...Jesus never attended a church (unless you consider the Synagogue [sp?]).

2) You may feel that you can disprove most of what I believe, and 90% of scientific fact is still a hypothesis. No one knows the all the answers...even science requires faith. Even Einstein's Theory of Relativity has been scrutinized for errors. Everything done by humans will have errors. I'm not defending "errors" in the Bible, I have a different take on the Bible than many people. I don't feel the Bible was intended for literal translation as others do. Much of it, I believe, is stories meant to put forth a moral. Sometimes I feel more like a deist, but I digress.

3) I am not Catholic, so I don't have to worry about what you wrote above. I have no regard for the Pope. As for my church, my wife and I don't belong to a church, we're not members. I have been baptized, but the church we go to we're not members of. We donate when we feel. I read the Bible, I'm in a bible study with some friends each week and we will read passages and discuss it, and it comes to these types of discussions at times. Granted, we're all Protestant. The Catholic Church (which seems to be what you have your biggest beef with) is not even on my radar. I don't buy into the things they do, it's not for me. That's not to say other people who are Catholic are bad. Just not for me.

4) Here is my thing, I would never promise I am 100% correct to anyone. I believe what I believe and that's cool for me. I think we all need to be open minded and live morally (whose morals?) Good question, the golden rule is a good start.

Good post. Sorry, I thought you were catholic.

It's just sad, all the time and human energy wasted on belief in silly gods. Until we realize that our efforts should be focused on improving man versus worshipping bronze age gods, we are doomed to perpetual war, famine, disease, neurosis and suffering.

The most violent place on earth is the cradle of the big three. Nuff said....

Well, I may be a forever optimist. But, I think religion and advancing humanity can go hand in hand. The fact that it hasn't, doesn't mean we shouldn't try. I'm all about advancing humanity, and doing so for everyone, regardless of their religion, sex, creed, etc. It's ridiculous to hate people because of their religion. That is why one of the greatest causes of atheism today--religious people. Now, there are people who are non-believers who cause just as many problems as those who are religious. The sad thing is, people can't put away their ideals and still define themselves as humans.

[D1B]

Good post. Sorry, I thought you were catholic.

It's just sad, all the time and human energy wasted on belief in silly gods. Until we realize that our efforts should be focused on improving man versus worshipping bronze age gods, we are doomed to perpetual war, famine, disease, neurosis and suffering.

The most violent place on earth is the cradle of the big three. Nuff said....

Well, I may be a forever optimist. But, I think religion and advancing humanity can go hand in hand. The fact that it hasn't, doesn't mean we shouldn't try. I'm all about advancing humanity, and doing so for everyone, regardless of their religion, sex, creed, etc. It's ridiculous to hate people because of their religion. That is why one of the greatest causes of atheism today--religious people. Now, there are people who are non-believers who cause just as many problems as those who are religious. The sad thing is, people can't put away their ideals and still define themselves as humans.

Who are the atheists troublemakers and what problems are they causing?

How do these problems compare to heresy of american mega churches, mormonism, and the catholic church, hatred of gays, islamic fundamentalism, war in the middle east, Jerry Falwell, W, the catholic stance on birth control, Phelps and the disaster that is republican party?

[ASUMountaineer]

Well, I may be a forever optimist. But, I think religion and advancing humanity can go hand in hand. The fact that it hasn't, doesn't mean we shouldn't try. I'm all about advancing humanity, and doing so for everyone, regardless of their religion, sex, creed, etc. It's ridiculous to hate people because of their religion. That is why one of the greatest causes of atheism today--religious people. Now, there are people who are non-believers who cause just as many problems as those who are religious. The sad thing is, people can't put away their ideals and still define themselves as humans.

Who are the atheists troublemakers and what problems are they causing?

How do these problems compare to heresy of american mega churches, mormonism, and the catholic church, hatred of gays, islamic fundamentalism, war in the middle east, Jerry Falwell, W, the catholic stance on birth control, Phelps and the disaster that is republican party?

I'm not comparing...not once did I make a comparison. It's no secret that non-believers commit murder, pedophilia, genocide, etc. Just like other humans. I don't blame it on their non-belief in a deity. I blame on them, individually. I'm not apologizing for religion. I want to be part of the solution D, like you. I think I can do that and still keep my religion.

[houndawg]

2) You may feel that you can disprove most of what I believe, and 90% of scientific fact is still a hypothesis. No one knows the all the answers...even science requires faith. Even Einstein's Theory of Relativity has been scrutinized for errors. Everything done by humans will have errors. I'm not defending "errors" in the Bible, I have a different take on the Bible than many people. I don't feel the Bible was intended for literal translation as others do. Much of it, I believe, is stories meant to put forth a moral. Sometimes I feel more like a deist, but I digress.

3) I am not Catholic, so I don't have to worry about what you wrote above. I have no regard for the Pope. As for my church, my wife and I don't belong to a church, we're not members. I have been baptized, but the church we go to we're not members of. We donate when we feel. I read the Bible, I'm in a bible study with some friends each week and we will read passages and discuss it, and it comes to these types of discussions at times. Granted, we're all Protestant. The Catholic Church (which seems to be what you have your biggest beef with) is not even on my radar. I don't buy into the things they do, it's not for me. That's not to say other people who are Catholic are bad. Just not for me.

4) Here is my thing, I would never promise I am 100% correct to anyone. I believe what I believe and that's cool for me. I think we all need to be open minded and live morally (whose morals?) Good question, the golden rule is a good start.[/quote]

Name one.

[D1B]

Who are the atheists troublemakers and what problems are they causing?

How do these problems compare to heresy of american mega churches, mormonism, and the catholic church, hatred of gays, islamic fundamentalism, war in the middle east, Jerry Falwell, W, the catholic stance on birth control, Phelps and the disaster that is republican party?

I'm not comparing...not once did I make a comparison. It's no secret that non-believers commit murder, pedophilia, genocide, etc. Just like other humans. I don't blame it on their non-belief in a deity. I blame on them, individually. I'm not apologizing for religion. I want to be part of the solution D, like you. I think I can do that and still keep my religion.

What can we do together?

[ASUMountaineer]

2) You may feel that you can disprove most of what I believe, and 90% of scientific fact is still a hypothesis. No one knows the all the answers...even science requires faith. Even Einstein's Theory of Relativity has been scrutinized for errors. Everything done by humans will have errors. I'm not defending "errors" in the Bible, I have a different take on the Bible than many people. I don't feel the Bible was intended for literal translation as others do. Much of it, I believe, is stories meant to put forth a moral. Sometimes I feel more like a deist, but I digress.

3) I am not Catholic, so I don't have to worry about what you wrote above. I have no regard for the Pope. As for my church, my wife and I don't belong to a church, we're not members. I have been baptized, but the church we go to we're not members of. We donate when we feel. I read the Bible, I'm in a bible study with some friends each week and we will read passages and discuss it, and it comes to these types of discussions at times. Granted, we're all Protestant. The Catholic Church (which seems to be what you have your biggest beef with) is not even on my radar. I don't buy into the things they do, it's not for me. That's not to say other people who are Catholic are bad. Just not for me.

4) Here is my thing, I would never promise I am 100% correct to anyone. I believe what I believe and that's cool for me. I think we all need to be open minded and live morally (whose morals?) Good question, the golden rule is a good start.

Name one.[/quote]

Ok, HD, don't get your panties in a wad. I didn't say I agreed with these people, I didn't even say there were errors. However, it's still called a theory. And, there are scientists who do scrutinize the theory of relativity. They don't dismiss it completely, some have questions about the experiments he used to prove his theory. You need to read, I used it to make a point that science too requires a leap of faith, and errors in the Bible are there, but they exist in science as well.

[D1B]

2) You may feel that you can disprove most of what I believe, and 90% of scientific fact is still a hypothesis. No one knows the all the answers...even science requires faith. Even Einstein's Theory of Relativity has been scrutinized for errors. Everything done by humans will have errors. I'm not defending "errors" in the Bible, I have a different take on the Bible than many people. I don't feel the Bible was intended for literal translation as others do. Much of it, I believe, is stories meant to put forth a moral. Sometimes I feel more like a deist, but I digress.

3) I am not Catholic, so I don't have to worry about what you wrote above. I have no regard for the Pope. As for my church, my wife and I don't belong to a church, we're not members. I have been baptized, but the church we go to we're not members of. We donate when we feel. I read the Bible, I'm in a bible study with some friends each week and we will read passages and discuss it, and it comes to these types of discussions at times. Granted, we're all Protestant. The Catholic Church (which seems to be what you have your biggest beef with) is not even on my radar. I don't buy into the things they do, it's not for me. That's not to say other people who are Catholic are bad. Just not for me.

4) Here is my thing, I would never promise I am 100% correct to anyone. I believe what I believe and that's cool for me. I think we all need to be open minded and live morally (whose morals?) Good question, the golden rule is a good start.

Name one.

Ok, HD, don't get your panties in a wad. I didn't say I agreed with these people, I didn't even say there were errors. However, it's still called a theory. And, there are scientists who do scrutinize the theory of relativity. They don't dismiss it completely, some have questions about the experiments he used to prove his theory. You need to read, I used it to make a point that science too requires a leap of faith, and errors in the Bible are there, but they exist in science as well.[/quote]

Science, unlike religion, is falsifiable. Science, unlike religion,welcomes and relies on scrutiny. The leap of faith to accept most science, once it reached my radar screen is quite minor and rarely involves me having to deny common sense and self decieve. It is not a leap of faith to accept algebra or relativity or evolution or 2+2 =4. Religion is believing, with all your heart that 2+2=3. That's why it is so dangerous.

[mass fan]

2) You may feel that you can disprove most of what I believe, and 90% of scientific fact is still a hypothesis. No one knows the all the answers...even science requires faith. Even Einstein's Theory of Relativity has been scrutinized for errors. Everything done by humans will have errors. I'm not defending "errors" in the Bible, I have a different take on the Bible than many people. I don't feel the Bible was intended for literal translation as others do. Much of it, I believe, is stories meant to put forth a moral. Sometimes I feel more like a deist, but I digress.

3) I am not Catholic, so I don't have to worry about what you wrote above. I have no regard for the Pope. As for my church, my wife and I don't belong to a church, we're not members. I have been baptized, but the church we go to we're not members of. We donate when we feel. I read the Bible, I'm in a bible study with some friends each week and we will read passages and discuss it, and it comes to these types of discussions at times. Granted, we're all Protestant. The Catholic Church (which seems to be what you have your biggest beef with) is not even on my radar. I don't buy into the things they do, it's not for me. That's not to say other people who are Catholic are bad. Just not for me.

4) Here is my thing, I would never promise I am 100% correct to anyone. I believe what I believe and that's cool for me. I think we all need to be open minded and live morally (whose morals?) Good question, the golden rule is a good start.

Name one.[/quote]
The one's with the gold rule.

[ASUMountaineer]

Name one.

Ok, HD, don't get your panties in a wad. I didn't say I agreed with these people, I didn't even say there were errors. However, it's still called a theory. And, there are scientists who do scrutinize the theory of relativity. They don't dismiss it completely, some have questions about the experiments he used to prove his theory. You need to read, I used it to make a point that science too requires a leap of faith, and errors in the Bible are there, but they exist in science as well.

Science, unlike religion, is falsifiable. Science, unlike religion,welcomes and relies on scrutiny. The leap of faith to accept most science, once it reached my radar screen is quite minor and rarely involves me having to deny common sense and self decieve. It is not a leap of faith to accept algebra or relativity or evolution or 2+2 =4. Religion is believing, with all your heart that 2+2=3. That's why it is so dangerous.[/quote]

Perhaps, though there are science theories that do require a leap of faith. The big bang came from nothing (sounds like God). There are parrellel universes and 11 dimensions (sounds like Heaven). See, we can do this all day, I'm not debating that religion doesn't requite faith, of course it does. So, does some of science.

[ASUMountaineer]

I'm not comparing...not once did I make a comparison. It's no secret that non-believers commit murder, pedophilia, genocide, etc. Just like other humans. I don't blame it on their non-belief in a deity. I blame on them, individually. I'm not apologizing for religion. I want to be part of the solution D, like you. I think I can do that and still keep my religion.

What can we do together?

We can start by showing there is common ground between people of faith and people of science. I believe the two can work together. I don't deny the earth is 4.7 billion years old. I don't even completely deny evolution. And, that is actually a growing sentiment amongst many religious folks. If more religious folks stepped back, they could see that science is not trying to kill religion...and vice versa with science folks.

[houndawg]

2) You may feel that you can disprove most of what I believe, and 90% of scientific fact is still a hypothesis. No one knows the all the answers...even science requires faith. Even Einstein's Theory of Relativity has been scrutinized for errors. Everything done by humans will have errors. I'm not defending "errors" in the Bible, I have a different take on the Bible than many people. I don't feel the Bible was intended for literal translation as others do. Much of it, I believe, is stories meant to put forth a moral. Sometimes I feel more like a deist, but I digress.

3) I am not Catholic, so I don't have to worry about what you wrote above. I have no regard for the Pope. As for my church, my wife and I don't belong to a church, we're not members. I have been baptized, but the church we go to we're not members of. We donate when we feel. I read the Bible, I'm in a bible study with some friends each week and we will read passages and discuss it, and it comes to these types of discussions at times. Granted, we're all Protestant. The Catholic Church (which seems to be what you have your biggest beef with) is not even on my radar. I don't buy into the things they do, it's not for me. That's not to say other people who are Catholic are bad. Just not for me.

4) Here is my thing, I would never promise I am 100% correct to anyone. I believe what I believe and that's cool for me. I think we all need to be open minded and live morally (whose morals?) Good question, the golden rule is a good start.

Name one.[/quote]

Ok, HD, don't get your panties in a wad. I didn't say I agreed with these people, I didn't even say there were errors. However, it's still called a theory. And, there are scientists who do scrutinize the theory of relativity. They don't dismiss it completely, some have questions about the experiments he used to prove his theory. You need to read, I used it to make a point that science too requires a leap of faith, and errors in the Bible are there, but they exist in science as well.

I read fine, your point is wrong.

Einstein didn't "use" any experiments to prove his theory, equipment that was sensitive enough to discriminate between between predictions made by Einstein's theory and what we now call "classical" Newtonian physics didn't exist yet.

When Einstein put his theories about relativity out in the physics world there was enormous scepticism precisely because the theories weren't yet testable. As time went by and applied physicists developed equipment and experiments that could observe/measure Einstein's predictions (gravitational lensing, precession of Mercury's orbit) it was seen that Einstein was right and physicists adjusted their world view accordingly. Now Einstein is the gospel.

Much different than, say, the Council of Nicaea, which pretty much gave us the Bible as we know it by deciding (three hundred years after the fact) that four second-hand (at best) gospels were correct and about a dozen others (Thomas, et al) were not.

Organized religion is about protecting the middle-man's turf, not discovering truth.

[D1B]

Ok, HD, don't get your panties in a wad. I didn't say I agreed with these people, I didn't even say there were errors. However, it's still called a theory. And, there are scientists who do scrutinize the theory of relativity. They don't dismiss it completely, some have questions about the experiments he used to prove his theory. You need to read, I used it to make a point that science too requires a leap of faith, and errors in the Bible are there, but they exist in science as well.

Science, unlike religion, is falsifiable. Science, unlike religion,welcomes and relies on scrutiny. The leap of faith to accept most science, once it reached my radar screen is quite minor and rarely involves me having to deny common sense and self decieve. It is not a leap of faith to accept algebra or relativity or evolution or 2+2 =4. Religion is believing, with all your heart that 2+2=3. That's why it is so dangerous.

Perhaps, though there are science theories that do require a leap of faith. The big bang came from nothing (sounds like God). There are parrellel universes and 11 dimensions (sounds like Heaven). See, we can do this all day, I'm not debating that religion doesn't requite faith, of course it does. So, does some of science.[/quote]

Yes we could go on for a bit but a difference between you and I is - the big bang don't mean shit to me. It has no effect what so ever on my daily life. I don't worship it. It does not affect my critical thinking skills. I don't force my children to learn more about it on Sundays when they should be out playing baseball and being kids. I don't have to deny common sense or self deceive in order to accept or reject it. If it wrong, it will have no effect what so ever on me. Proponents of big bang are not zealots and use billions of dollars to try to convert people. There are no churches or Vaticans dedicated to managing big bang.

I generally reject your belief that science requires a leap of faith. That you can only think of big bang as an example confirms this. Big bang ultimately doesn't mean shit, to anyone.

[Cap'n Cat]

Ok, HD, don't get your panties in a wad. I didn't say I agreed with these people, I didn't even say there were errors. However, it's still called a theory. And, there are scientists who do scrutinize the theory of relativity. They don't dismiss it completely, some have questions about the experiments he used to prove his theory. You need to read, I used it to make a point that science too requires a leap of faith, and errors in the Bible are there, but they exist in science as well.

Science, unlike religion, is falsifiable. Science, unlike religion,welcomes and relies on scrutiny. The leap of faith to accept most science, once it reached my radar screen is quite minor and rarely involves me having to deny common sense and self decieve. It is not a leap of faith to accept algebra or relativity or evolution or 2+2 =4. Religion is believing, with all your heart that 2+2=3. That's why it is so dangerous.

Reppies. Bolded is brilliant. Jesus groupies take note.

[ASUMountaineer]

Perhaps, though there are science theories that do require a leap of faith. The big bang came from nothing (sounds like God). There are parrellel universes and 11 dimensions (sounds like Heaven). See, we can do this all day, I'm not debating that religion doesn't requite faith, of course it does. So, does some of science.

Yes we could go on for a bit but a difference between you and I is - the big bang don't mean shit to me. It has no effect what so ever on my daily life. I don't worship it. It does not affect my critical thinking skills. I don't force my children to learn more about it on Sundays when they should be out playing baseball and being kids. I don't have to deny common sense or self deceive in order to accept or reject it. If it wrong, it will have no effect what so ever on me. Proponents of big bang are not zealots and use billions of dollars to try to convert people. There are no churches or Vaticans dedicated to managing big bang.

I generally reject your belief that science requires a leap of faith. That you can only think of big bang as an example confirms this. Big bang ultimately doesn't mean shit, to anyone.

You can reject it all you want, and that's fine--we all have different ideas. I reject your claims so we're at a stand still. The Big Bang is an example that everyone has heard of, so I used it (plus I used it to draw parrallels to those theories and religious beliefs). I know you have a deep hate for religion, and that's your thing and that's cool. Just as the Big Bang has no effect on your life, your hatred of religion is the same for me (as my belief in Jesus is the same for you).

Again, the biggest difference between us isn't our takes on religion, it's how we view people who disagree with our beliefs on religion. I do appreciate what you said earlier about my being reasonable when discussing religion. I try to be. I know not everyone thinks as I do, and that's cool. I don't expect them to. I also respect that they have their own beliefs (even a belief in nothing is a belief). You mention churches and vaticans, and again I will point to our mutual agreement that one does not need an organized Christian church to be a Christian.

Another difference is, I don't claim to be right. I claim to have my own personal beliefs and ideas.

[D1B]

Yes we could go on for a bit but a difference between you and I is - the big bang don't mean shit to me. It has no effect what so ever on my daily life. I don't worship it. It does not affect my critical thinking skills. I don't force my children to learn more about it on Sundays when they should be out playing baseball and being kids. I don't have to deny common sense or self deceive in order to accept or reject it. If it wrong, it will have no effect what so ever on me. Proponents of big bang are not zealots and use billions of dollars to try to convert people. There are no churches or Vaticans dedicated to managing big bang.

I generally reject your belief that science requires a leap of faith. That you can only think of big bang as an example confirms this. Big bang ultimately doesn't mean shit, to anyone.

You can reject it all you want, and that's fine--we all have different ideas. I reject your claims so we're at a stand still. The Big Bang is an example that everyone has heard of, so I used it (plus I used it to draw parrallels to those theories and religious beliefs). I know you have a deep hate for religion, and that's your thing and that's cool. Just as the Big Bang has no effect on your life, your hatred of religion is the same for me (as my belief in Jesus is the same for you).

Again, the biggest difference between us isn't our takes on religion, it's how we view people who disagree with our beliefs on religion.

You're attempting to poison the well with BB (after failing with relativity).

I disagree that the BB is an appropriate analogy in this discussion. It's relevance to science, at least now, is minute and concerns mainly those interested in theoretical physics and astronomy. It's relevance to our quality of life and the vast bulk of science we rely on daily in non existent.

I don't view reasonable religious people in the negative.

[ASUMountaineer]

You can reject it all you want, and that's fine--we all have different ideas. I reject your claims so we're at a stand still. The Big Bang is an example that everyone has heard of, so I used it (plus I used it to draw parrallels to those theories and religious beliefs). I know you have a deep hate for religion, and that's your thing and that's cool. Just as the Big Bang has no effect on your life, your hatred of religion is the same for me (as my belief in Jesus is the same for you).

Again, the biggest difference between us isn't our takes on religion, it's how we view people who disagree with our beliefs on religion.

You're attempting to poison the well with BB (after failing with relativity).

I disagree that the BB is an appropriate analogy in this discussion. It's relevance to science, at least now, is minute and concerns mainly those interested in theoretical physics and astronomy. It's relevance to our quality of life and the vast bulk of science we rely on daily in non existent.

I don't view reasonable religious people in the negative.

I didn't fail with relatively. Look it up, you'll see scientists who have concerns. I also never said Einstein's relativity was incorrect, as HD implied. I simply said it has been scrutinized. Of course, you can take that to mean whatever you want, but if you take that as me saying it's incorrect, you'd be greatly mistaken.

This whole discussion started with me saying this "cleric" was a joke and liar.

I'm not trying to poison anything, I'm trying to have a reasonable discussion. I'm also not telling you you're incorrect... The BB is discussed a lot in science and I think it is relevant--especially because it is presented as fact. (plus I'm a space dork, I love the study of astonomy and the cosmos) We just disagree, I don't see why that's such a problem.

[D1B]

You're attempting to poison the well with BB (after failing with relativity).

I disagree that the BB is an appropriate analogy in this discussion. It's relevance to science, at least now, is minute and concerns mainly those interested in theoretical physics and astronomy. It's relevance to our quality of life and the vast bulk of science we rely on daily in non existent.

I don't view reasonable religious people in the negative.

I didn't fail with relatively. Look it up, you'll see scientists who have concerns. I also never said Einstein's relativity was incorrect, as HD implied. I simply said it has been scrutinized. Of course, you can take that to mean whatever you want, but if you take that as me saying it's incorrect, you'd be greatly mistaken.

This whole discussion started with me saying this "cleric" was a joke and liar.

I'm not trying to poison anything, I'm trying to have a reasonable discussion. I'm also not telling you you're incorrect... The BB is discussed a lot in science and I think it is relevant--especially because it is presented as fact. (plus I'm a space dork, I love the study of astonomy and the cosmos) We just disagree, I don't see why that's such a problem.

Unlike religion, I don't recall BB presented as fact. I could be wrong. Unlike religion, I hear BB presented as the best theory to date.

No problems. I'm a space dork too. I'm a frequent explorer of "outer space" and captain of the spaceship LSD.

[ASUMountaineer]

I didn't fail with relatively. Look it up, you'll see scientists who have concerns. I also never said Einstein's relativity was incorrect, as HD implied. I simply said it has been scrutinized. Of course, you can take that to mean whatever you want, but if you take that as me saying it's incorrect, you'd be greatly mistaken.

This whole discussion started with me saying this "cleric" was a joke and liar.

I'm not trying to poison anything, I'm trying to have a reasonable discussion. I'm also not telling you you're incorrect... The BB is discussed a lot in science and I think it is relevant--especially because it is presented as fact. (plus I'm a space dork, I love the study of astonomy and the cosmos) We just disagree, I don't see why that's such a problem.

Unlike religion, I don't recall BB presented as fact. I could be wrong. Unlike religion, I hear BB presented as the best theory to date.

No problems. I'm a space dork too. I'm a frequent explorer of "outer space" and captain of the spaceship LSD.

I watch a lot of Discovery, Science, and NatGeo. Not necessarily the best place to get scientific facts, I suppose.

I love, The Universe and the show starts out with "In the beginning there was darkness, and then [explosion noise on the screen--which is funny because you wouldn't hear anything in space]" Anyways, last night I watched "Light Speed" which was pretty cool. They said they can date the Big Bang because of how far we can see based on the speed of light. However, they did say that's just as far as we can see. It's feasible that someone 13.5 billion light years away from us could see another 13.5 billion years farther. Pretty mind boggling stuff. That's one of the main reasons I say that 1) I don't claim to have all of the answers, and 2) I don't believe that anyone else does.

I'm fascinated by time and how long everything has been in existence and how everything came to be. The BB doesn't solve that question for me, but it does raise other questions. I don't dispute that the universe was created that way, I am fascinated by the mechanism that, not only caused the BB, but created all of the matter it held; what the universe exists in; where does the universe end; parrallel universes; etc.

As to religion being presented as fact, I can only speak for myself. I don't speak for the church, and the church doesn't speak for me. I don't present my religion as fact, I present it as an idea I subscribe to. Clearly, not everyone has the same idea. It's a personal thing for me.

[Ibanez]

I enjoy shaved vagina. Bushy vagina is just no good to me. It tickles my face and I can't concentrate. Though one time, I think I may have licked an asshole by accident. Does that mean i've "tossed salad" or no? It wasn't intentional.

What are we talking about, religion? Crap...

[ASUMountaineer]

I enjoy shaved vagina. Bushy vagina is just no good to me. It tickles my face and I can't concentrate. Though one time, I think I may have licked an asshole by accident. Does that mean i've "tossed salad" or no? It wasn't intentional.

What are we talking about, religion? Crap...

I agree, shaved vagina is much better. As to your question to the "tossed salad" situation. I would answer yes, but this is like Peak Fitness here in Charlotte, a "No Judgment Zone."