Religion question ???

[Stella Richards]

Hi,

Is there a religion/belief something for people who believe in god but not organized religion....basically doubt the bible (parts of it that is) who also believe in big bang theory and in evolution and the whole monkey human thing..where do these ppl fit in?

I myself am like this i dont really believe god created earth in 7 days I believe there is a god but science is a part of it too.. so when ppl ask me my religion im not sure what to say? i normally say i believe in god just dont follow religion.. hmm. this has always confused me!!! any insights.

[fyatuk]

As far as I know, there's no term other than non-church-going Christian. And of course you describe intelligent design.

[LnGrrrR]

Hi,

Is there a religion/belief something for people who believe in god but not organized religion....basically doubt the bible (parts of it that is) who also believe in big bang theory and in evolution and the whole monkey human thing..where do these ppl fit in?

I myself am like this i dont really believe god created earth in 7 days I believe there is a god but science is a part of it too.. so when ppl ask me my religion im not sure what to say? i normally say i believe in god just dont follow religion.. hmm. this has always confused me!!! any insights.

There's a few different ones. How do you view God? Is he a discrete figure who you believe takes actions and interferes with humanity? (Most religions) Or is he just a figure out there who doesn't really care about us? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeismOr maybe you think he's a spirit that resides in everything? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Pantheism) Or that the entire world itself makes up a single being, a God of a sort? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_pantheism)

Give me some idea of how you view this God/god and I can help you out further. :D

[Bukefal]

Well you can say, I believe, I believe in something I just dont believe exactly like the church and the bible tell me to believe, I believe on my own way.

This is also how I myself believe, on my own way, but im still religious and christian.

[Supergirl]

Deism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

Many of our founding fathers were deists, and rejected the idea of organized religion, including Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.

Today, some might call this Unitarianism too.

[boutons_deux]

"so when ppl ask me my religion im not sure what to say?"

how about: NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS (or silence, although your silence will be too subtle a message for the ppl to understand)

[fyatuk]

"so when ppl ask me my religion im not sure what to say?"

how about: NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS (or silence, although your silence will be too subtle a message for the ppl to understand)

That should never be a Christian's answer.

[Winehole23]

Modern Unitarianism is eclectic to the point of welcoming atheists, religious non-practitioners and doubters of various stripes. The gripe that it hoists reason over revelation and runs to natural religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_religion) is mostly warranted IMO, Wm. Ellery Channing's famous 1819 speech notwithstanding

Unitarianism is congregational, so the degree of identifiable Christianity to be found in its churches can vary a little, but any conventionally observant person is bound to find it more than a little odd.

[boutons_deux]

"That should never be a Christian's answer."

That's exactly the attitude that "Christians" use to justify their "right" to pry into anybody's private life.

[fyatuk]

"That should never be a Christian's answer."

That's exactly the attitude that "Christians" use to justify their "right" to pry into anybody's private life.

Uhh, how is the fact that a Christian should never refuse to answer a question about their religion part of the attitude you state?

I just know every Christian is supposed to be a preacher spreading the word, so a Christian refusing to talk about their religion when asked is violating a major concept of the faith.

[101A]

Modern Unitarianism is eclectic to the point of welcoming atheists, religious non-practitioners and doubters of various stripes. The gripe that it hoists reason over revelation and runs to natural religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_religion) is mostly warranted IMO, Wm. Ellery Channing's famous 1819 speech notwithstanding

Unitarianism is congregational, so the degree of identifiable Christianity to be found in its churches can vary a little, but any conventionally observant person is bound to find it more than a little odd.

Went to a UU congregation auction/fund-raiser this weekend. Nice people. Nothing religious binds them together per se, but they are all liberal.

[Winehole23]

Uhh, how is the fact that a Christian should never refuse to answer a question about their religion part of the attitude you state?

I just know every Christian is supposed to be a preacher spreading the word, so a Christian refusing to talk about their religion when asked is violating a major concept of the faith.The Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-30, Mark 16:14-18, Luke 24:44-49, Acts 1:4-8 and John 20: 19-23) is widely held as authoritative.

Extra Stout?

[boutons_deux]

"I just know every Christian is supposed to be a preacher spreading the word"

How do you know that?

[fyatuk]

"I just know every Christian is supposed to be a preacher spreading the word"

How do you know that?

It's what I was taught as a kid (when I WAS christian), and every body I've ever known who was Christian (or was raised such) was taught.

I'm sure there's something about it in the New Testament, or possibly some of the other apocraphyl writings. You'd have to ask someone who's more familiar with the Bible since I haven't cracked it open in something like 17 years.

[BacktoBasics]

LOL @ all you guys responding to a poster who clearly just wanted to spam the website in his sig.

[Blake]

Hi,

Is there a religion/belief something for people who believe in god but not organized religion....basically doubt the bible (parts of it that is) who also believe in big bang theory and in evolution and the whole monkey human thing..where do these ppl fit in?

I myself am like this i dont really believe god created earth in 7 days I believe there is a god but science is a part of it too.. so when ppl ask me my religion im not sure what to say? i normally say i believe in god just dont follow religion.. hmm. this has always confused me!!! any insights.

what exactly is the point of your questions?

Are you looking to join a group of others that believe the way you do or do you just want a label so that when people ask what religion you subscribe to, you will finally be able to tell them? or both?

[fyatuk]

LOL @ all you guys responding to a poster who clearly just wanted to spam the website in his sig.

Hey, why not. Sometimes that leads to very interesting discussions.

[Blake]

LOL @ all you guys responding to a poster who clearly just wanted to spam the website in his sig.

I have sigs turned off.

I thought it might a regular poster using a troll so as not to get flamed

[Blake]

It's what I was taught as a kid (when I WAS christian), and every body I've ever known who was Christian (or was raised such) was taught.

I'm sure there's something about it in the New Testament, or possibly some of the other apocraphyl writings. You'd have to ask someone who's more familiar with the Bible since I haven't cracked it open in something like 17 years.

it's always a great idea to tell someone they are violating a major concept of the Bible when you haven't even cracked open the Bible in 17 years.

[fyatuk]

it's always a great idea to tell someone they are violating a major concept of the Bible when you haven't even cracked open the Bible in 17 years.

I didn't say major concept of the Bible, I said major concept of the faith.

Big difference there.

I am exposed to, and talk about, Christian beliefs (well, and other religions to a lesser extent) on a regular basis. I still know a lot of what's in the Bible, just not the exact locations or wording. I'm sure I could find something to support it if I wanted to bother flipping through any of the Bible's I have.

Oh, and I was wrong on the years. I forgot about the JW's I used to talk with every week. Make that just 10 years :p:

[Blake]

I didn't say major concept of the Bible, I said major concept of the faith.

Big difference there.

I am exposed to, and talk about, Christian beliefs (well, and other religions to a lesser extent) on a regular basis. I still know a lot of what's in the Bible, just not the exact locations or wording. I'm sure I could find something to support it if I wanted to bother flipping through any of the Bible's I have.

It's always a great idea to tell someone they are violating a major concept of their faith when you haven't even cracked open the book they use as the basis of that faith in 17 years.

[Blake]

Oh, and I was wrong on the years. I forgot about the JW's I used to talk with every week. Make that just 10 years :p:

It's always a great idea to tell someone they are violating a major concept of their faith when you haven't even cracked open the book they use as the basis of that faith in 10 years.

[fyatuk]

It's always a great idea to tell someone they are violating a major concept of their faith when you haven't even cracked open the book they use as the basis of that faith in 10 years.

Oh please. The majority of Christians I've met haven't read a significant portion of the Bible. The basis of the faith is now the words spouted by the ordained in the various sects and denominations. They might know appropriate quotes to support some of their more common dicussions, but they really only know what they've been told.

At least I've actually read all the Old Testament, most of the New Testament, a healthy portion of apocraphyl texts, various papers on Chrstianity and it's history, etc. That's more than ANY non-ordained Christian I've met can say.

[Blake]

Oh please. The majority of Christians I've met haven't read a significant portion of the Bible.

I don't see any of them on here saying " a Christian refusing to talk about their religion when asked is violating a major concept of the faith."



At least I've actually read all the Old Testament, most of the New Testament, a healthy portion of apocraphyl texts, various papers on Chrstianity and it's history, etc. That's more than ANY non-ordained Christian I've met can say.

and you are wrong. congratulations.

[fyatuk]

I don't see any of them on here saying " a Christian refusing to talk about their religion when asked is violating a major concept of the faith."

Like I said, it's what I and every Christian I've ever met was taught. Whether they are on here or not saying it doesn't change that.


and you are wrong. congratulations.

I don't see any of the acknowledged Christians on here disagreeing with me either, so you're jumping the gun a bit there. Are you a Christian and were you taught different?

I know your obsessed with proving me wrong, but you haven't proposed anything to argue against the statement. Someone posted Bible verses above relating to Jesus telling the Disciples to spread the word. Many denominiation and sects have taken that as a command to all followers, not just the specific subset of Disciples.

Although I would like to apologize for the second paragraph in my last post though. I went a little too far in my attempt to stress how little most of the "Christians" I know have paid any attention to the Bible, and ended up focusing too much on what I've studied. It was completely irrelevant and I shouldn't have gone there.

[Blake]

Like I said, it's what I and every Christian I've ever met was taught. Whether they are on here or not saying it doesn't change that.

Like I said, it's always a great idea to tell someone that they are violating a major concept of their faith when you haven't even cracked open the book of their faith in 10 years.


I don't see any of the acknowledged Christians on here disagreeing with me either, so you're jumping the gun a bit there. Are you a Christian and were you taught different?

:lol so that means they all agree?


I know your obsessed with proving me wrong, but you haven't proposed anything to argue against the statement.

I could care less about another poster on an internet message board. You made a statement with nothing but your ass as a source and it's idiotic to do so.


Someone posted Bible verses above relating to Jesus telling the Disciples to spread the word. Many denominiation and sects have taken that as a command to all followers, not just the specific subset of Disciples.

Name some of these "many" denominations that see it as a major violation to not discuss their religion when asked.

The Bible verses above refer to going and spreading the gospel. What Bible verse are you referring to that says it's a violation to not talk about it when asked?


Although I would like to apologize for the second paragraph in my last post though. I went a little too far in my attempt to stress how little most of the "Christians" I know have paid any attention to the Bible, and ended up focusing too much on what I've studied. It was completely irrelevant and I shouldn't have gone there.

I agree that your posts are completely irrelevant. They are also completely ignorant.

[Extra Stout]

The Great Commission (Matthew 28:16-30, Mark 16:14-18, Luke 24:44-49, Acts 1:4-8 and John 20: 19-23) is widely held as authoritative.

Extra Stout?

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have." -- 1 Peter 3:15a

[fyatuk]

Like I said, it's always a great idea to tell someone that they are violating a major concept of their faith when you haven't even cracked open the book of their faith in 10 years.

:lol so that means they all agree?

Why not, you used that logic to declare me wrong? :lol

If I'm wrong cause they aren't vocally agreeing with me, then you must be wrong because they aren't vocally agreeing with you.


I could care less about another poster on an internet message board. You made a statement with nothing but your ass as a source and it's idiotic to do so.

I made a statement that should have included a disclaimer relating to what I and everyone I know was taught. I could probably go get quotes from my friends and family and other Christians I know to support it. That'd be kind of pointless though.

I'll admit that, to be technical, I should have included a disclaimer restricting it to every Christian I've ever met instead of every Christian. But it is fairly logical to extrapolate that kind of unanimous response over that kind of sample size (several thousand) to a larger body. May not be correct, but it is logical.


Name some of these "many" denominations that see it as a major violation to not discuss their religion when asked.

1) I said violation of a major concept of their faith, not major violation. You keep trying your hardest to change what I said.

I know that's been taught in Baptist, Methodist, Episcapalion (sp), JW, and Mormon, at least in this area.


The Bible verses above refer to going and spreading the gospel. What Bible verse are you referring to that says it's a violation to not talk about it when asked?

Well, gee. I already know I'll not go look something up for you, so forget that.

Sticking with the same verses, Jesus commanded the word be spread. If you refuse to talk about the faith, even when asked, that would be disobeying a command from God. Wouldn't that be a violation?


I agree that your posts are completely irrelevant. They are also completely ignorant.

It's a message board, everyone's posts are completely irrelevant. I'm still waiting to see you make an even remotely compelling argument on anything, so I'll take that as a complement :p:

[Blake]

Why not, you used that logic to declare me wrong? :lol

the "prove me wrong" line is always a fail. If you can't figure out why, you are an idiot.


If I'm wrong cause they aren't vocally agreeing with me, then you must be wrong because they aren't vocally agreeing with you.

you're wrong because you have failed to source your quotes from anything other than your ass.


I made a statement that should have included a disclaimer relating to what I and everyone I know was taught. I could probably go get quotes from my friends and family and other Christians I know to support it. That'd be kind of pointless though.

You're finally right on both counts. You should have posted a disclaimer or an "IMO" and it would be pointless.


I'll admit that, to be technical, I should have included a disclaimer restricting it to every Christian I've ever met instead of every Christian. But it is fairly logical to extrapolate that kind of unanimous response over that kind of sample size (several thousand) to a larger body. May not be correct, but it is logical.

talking out of your ass is anything but logical.


1) I said violation of a major concept of their faith, not major violation. You keep trying your hardest to change what I said.

:lol so violating a major concept of their faith is a minor violation?


I know that's been taught in Baptist, Methodist, Episcapalion (sp), JW, and Mormon, at least in this area.

so I guess that covers all Christians


Well, gee. I already know I'll not go look something up for you, so forget that.

Sticking with the same verses, Jesus commanded the word be spread. If you refuse to talk about the faith, even when asked, that would be disobeying a command from God. Wouldn't that be a violation?

Why are you asking me? According to you and your ass, you are certain that it's violating a major concept.


It's a message board, everyone's posts are completely irrelevant. I'm still waiting to see you make an even remotely compelling argument on anything, so I'll take that as a complement :p:

Not true. If you post a legitimate source to back up your claims, then your posts become more relevant.

Your posts are irrelevant because you post no sources and admit that you haven't cracked a Bible in 10 years.

Well done.

[fyatuk]

the "prove me wrong" line is always a fail. If you can't figure out why, you are an idiot.

Well, considering 2 people above have posted verses that support my original statement.

Besides, I told you before I don't take these things seriously. Just trying to wake up, and finding an argument is a good way to do that :toast


you're wrong because you have failed to source your quotes from anything other than your ass.

I have provided no quotes what-so-ever. I have spoken fully from what I was verbally taught as a kid, and the discussions I've had with others, and have made no efforts to hide that.

So apparently, you can't even tell when someone is quoting or not. nice job.


You're finally right on both counts. You should have posted a disclaimer or an "IMO" and it would be pointless.

talking out of your ass is anything but logical.

Yes, heresey is heresey. You really love the "talking out of your ass" line.


:lol so violating a major concept of their faith is a minor violation?

It can be. It all depends on how you feel about shades of grey. Not everything's black/white you know.


so I guess that covers all Christians

As much as any poll can be applied outside its base sample. Probably more accurately considering the agreement in the sample.


Why are you asking me? According to you and your ass, you are certain that it's violating a major concept.

Just seeing if you can understand the concept of breaking a command from the Saviour can be seen as a violation of the faith. I'm guessing no...


Not true. If you post a legitimate source to back up your claims, then your posts become more relevant.

Your posts are irrelevant because you post no sources and admit that you haven't cracked a Bible in 10 years.

Yep, and I won't for a message board. This is for fun, and I'll rarely bother to find a source for anything on the 'net. I've already explained that in several places on the board (and specifically to you). Sorry if you don't like that I don't take a message board serious enough to do research papers for it, tough noogies :p:


Well done.

I'm wide awake now, so I'll say so.

[td4mvp21]

Sounds a lot like deism to me.

[FaithInOne]

when will boutons learn to use the quote function

[Blake]

Well, considering 2 people above have posted verses that support my original statement.

Nope. Nothing in those verses say that it's a major concept of the Christian faith.


Besides, I told you before I don't take these things seriously. Just trying to wake up, and finding an argument is a good way to do that :toast

do you always make ignorant posts out of your ass after just waking up?



I have provided no quotes what-so-ever. I have spoken fully from what I was verbally taught as a kid, and the discussions I've had with others, and have made no efforts to hide that.

I don't think you've ever provided any quotes ever in any of your posts......which is why you are an ignorant fool that should shut the hell up instead of talking about violating major concepts of the Christian faith.



So apparently, you can't even tell when someone is quoting or not. nice job.

I can tell when you're not.

You're not.

You also just said you provided no quotes, so apparently you can't even tell when you are quoting from a real source or just your ass. Nice job.


Yes, heresey is heresey. You really love the "talking out of your ass" line.

You really love "talking out of your ass"


It can be. It all depends on how you feel about shades of grey. Not everything's black/white you know.

You made it pretty clear that it's a violation of a major concept.


As much as any poll can be applied outside its base sample. Probably more accurately considering the agreement in the sample.

more ass talking


Just seeing if you can understand the concept of breaking a command from the Saviour can be seen as a violation of the faith. I'm guessing no...

just seeing of you can actually find any real source that says "a Christian refusing to talk about their religion when asked is violating a major concept of the faith." I'm guessing no...



Yep, and I won't for a message board. This is for fun, and I'll rarely bother to find a source for anything on the 'net. I've already explained that in several places on the board (and specifically to you). Sorry if you don't like that I don't take a message board serious enough to do research papers for it, tough noogies :p:

If you find it fun to look like an idiot on message boards, then great! Good for you.


I'm wide awake now, so I'll say so.

Well done.

[Supergirl]

What is heresey?

Does the poster mean "heresy" or "hearsay"? LOL.

[fyatuk]

Nope. Nothing in those verses say that it's a major concept of the Christian faith.

It's supporting evidence. Not a "smoking gun," but still supporting evidence. Like I said, I don't care enough to actually go look for anything. It's not like they're my beliefs :p:


do you always make ignorant posts out of your ass after just waking up?

Not that I agree with ignorant, but when I'm having trouble staying a wake I tend to make a lot of posts and argue things for the hell of it. It's fun. I know you think so too :lol


I don't think you've ever provided any quotes ever in any of your posts......which is why you are an ignorant fool that should shut the hell up instead of talking about violating major concepts of the Christian faith.

Didn't I just say I rarely (if ever) provide quotes? Wow, you won't even take my word on my own posts. That's just funny.


I can tell when you're not.

You're not.

You also just said you provided no quotes, so apparently you can't even tell when you are quoting from a real source or just your ass. Nice job.

LOL. Okay... For this to make any sense what-so-ever, you'd have to prove I quoted something, WITHOUT KNOWING I quoted something. This just makes sooooooooooooo much sense.

Especially since you just agreed with my statement that I haven't provided any quotes.


You really love "talking out of your ass"

You made it pretty clear that it's a violation of a major concept.

And then, when asked, I clarified that it was to the Christians I've known. Most people would have left it at that clarification, especially since you basically said earlier that if I had that as a disclaimer on the original post, you would have ignored it.

I mean, come on now...


more ass talking

Okay, so you're saying taking data from a subset of people and applying to the whole at large is NOT a poll?

That's just idiotic. You want to claim unreliable data (coming from my conversations and memory, which you have access to a quote that can be taken out of context from me calling my memory fuzzy), or a biased poll, that's fine.


just seeing of you can actually find any real source that says "a Christian refusing to talk about their religion when asked is violating a major concept of the faith." I'm guessing no...

Pretty idiotic when you know I won't even when I can. I see you like to waste time as much as I do.


If you find it fun to look like an idiot on message boards, then great! Good for you.

You've said this to me before, and the answer is still the same.


What is heresey?

Does the poster mean "heresy" or "hearsay"? LOL.

Sorry about that. Hearsay. Never claimed to be a competent speller, at least not recently.

[Blake]

It's supporting evidence. Not a "smoking gun," but still supporting evidence. Like I said, I don't care enough to actually go look for anything. It's not like they're my beliefs :p:

if it is what you say, then it shouldn't be that hard to find for you.

of course, you don't care enough to actually go look for anything.


Not that I agree with ignorant, but when I'm having trouble staying a wake I tend to make a lot of posts and argue things for the hell of it. It's fun. I know you think so too :lol

having trouble staying awake doesn't make you ignorant. Posting something as truth without anything to back it up with makes you ignorant.


Didn't I just say I rarely (if ever) provide quotes? Wow, you won't even take my word on my own posts. That's just funny.

I've never seen you provide quotes, and that would include this thread.

I'll take your word for it that you never provide quotes, but it's not necessary as I can see that for myself.


LOL. Okay... For this to make any sense what-so-ever, you'd have to prove I quoted something, WITHOUT KNOWING I quoted something. This just makes sooooooooooooo much sense.

Have you provided any quotes in this thread. In the end that's all I am suggesting you do.

I'm not surprised it doesn't make sense to you.


Especially since you just agreed with my statement that I haven't provided any quotes.

Right. Because you haven't provided any.

I'm glad we agree that you don't provide quotes.


And then, when asked, I clarified that it was to the Christians I've known. Most people would have left it at that clarification, especially since you basically said earlier that if I had that as a disclaimer on the original post, you would have ignored it.

and I clarified that you are ignorant and that you were talking out of your ass.


Okay, so you're saying taking data from a subset of people and applying to the whole at large is NOT a poll?

I'm saying you have no poll, no data, no nothing.

Just ass talking.


That's just idiotic. You want to claim unreliable data (coming from my conversations and memory, which you have access to a quote that can be taken out of context from me calling my memory fuzzy), or a biased poll, that's fine.

You were claiming something based on your own fuzzy memory.

That's just idiotic.


Pretty idiotic when you know I won't even when I can. I see you like to waste time as much as I do.

Pretty idiotic when you claim you can but you really can't.

You are an ignorant fool.


You've said this to me before, and the answer is still the same.


It wasn't a question. It was a statement that's still the same: if you have fun looking like an idiot on a message board then great! Good for you.

[fyatuk]

if it is what you say, then it shouldn't be that hard to find for you.

of course, you don't care enough to actually go look for anything.

Correct. In this case it wouldn't be hard, and I don't care enough to.


having trouble staying awake doesn't make you ignorant. Posting something as truth without anything to back it up with makes you ignorant.

No, that makes me LAZY. Ignorant would be posting something as truth without realizing it's wrong.

By this rule, if I posted "the sky is blue" without a picture or several documented accounts of reliable people calling the sky blue, I'd be ignorant.

I'm really starting to think you either have no idea what "ignorant" means, or you just like using the word even when it doesn't apply.


I've never seen you provide quotes, and that would include this thread.

I'll take your word for it that you never provide quotes, but it's not necessary as I can see that for myself.

Have you provided any quotes in this thread. In the end that's all I am suggesting you do.

Wow... You are really going in circles on that one. You can suggest all you want, I still won't do it because it would be less entertaining for me. And entertainment is what my posting here is all about.


I'm not surprised it doesn't make sense to you.

Because the way you said it makes no sense. You responded with


You also just said you provided no quotes, so apparently you can't even tell when you are quoting from a real source or just your ass.

To me pointing out you statement of me failing to source my quotes was incorrect because I don't provide them. I mean seriously. Forget the rest of the conversation... Does your statement make ANY sense with the fact that we've both agreed I have not provided ANY quotes here...


Right. Because you haven't provided any.

I'm glad we agree that you don't provide quotes.

Okay, so is there a point to us both discussing the fact that I don't provide quotes?


and I clarified that you are ignorant and that you were talking out of your ass.

And you haven't proved ignorance, only laziness (based on apathy).


I'm saying you have no poll, no data, no nothing.

LOL. Considering my data isn't documented on paper, I guess you can argue that. But you can't argue with the methodology or applying a sample to a larger section.


You were claiming something based on your own fuzzy memory.

Yup, I had 2 posters I had never paid serious attention to confused. That was stupid. I admitted and apologized for that.


Pretty idiotic when you claim you can but you really can't.

Not really. Adds to the fun. If I back up everything I say that is right with the appropriate annotations, kind of makes it impossible to argue the wrong side once in a while for the fun of it. Besides, like I said, I have no interest in doing research papers for a message board.


You are an ignorant fool.

Still waiting for proof of ignorance. I'm certainly a fool (in the court jester sense), and I absolutely qualify as apathetic and lazy, though.


It wasn't a question. It was a statement that's still the same: if you have fun looking like an idiot on a message board then great! Good for you.

Oh, so you're just repeating yourself ad nauseum again. Gotcha.

[Blake]

Correct. In this case it wouldn't be hard, and I don't care enough to.

No, that makes me LAZY. Ignorant would be posting something as truth without realizing it's wrong.


You don't care enough to look it up. You don't realize you are wrong.

We have long ago concluded you are lazy. You are apparently ignorant of your ignorance. congratulations.

I'm beginning to think you enjoy getting owned more than Galileo.

sense this thread is a goner, I'm curious, did you actually go to utsa or were you trying to defend those utsa freaks for the hell of it?

[fyatuk]

You don't care enough to look it up. You don't realize you are wrong.

I'm not in this case.


We have long ago concluded you are lazy. You are apparently ignorant of your ignorance. congratulations.

I'm beginning to think you enjoy getting owned more than Galileo.

sense this thread is a goner, I'm curious, did you actually go to utsa or were you trying to defend those utsa freaks for the hell of it?

I think I've been on UTSA campus once for a HS acadmic meet. And honestly, if I could afford to go back to college (and decided to do real classes instead of online), TX State would be a better fit for my interests.

My defense of the "freaks" consisted mostly of "it wasn't entirely their fault."

We did a pretty good job of massacring this thread, didn't we :downspin:

[LnGrrrR]

LOL @ all you guys responding to a poster who clearly just wanted to spam the website in his sig.

*facepalm*

I only pay attention to signatures when they have hot chicks in them.

[Blake]

I'm not in this case.

you didn't back up your source.

I know it's fun to run around saying you're right just because you think so, but it doesn't prove the claim you tried to make.


My defense of the "freaks" consisted mostly of "it wasn't entirely their fault."



actually it was mostly all their fault. I'd show the proof, but the threads have been deleted. If you ask Kori, she'll verify, although you'll probably still figure out a way to think it wasn't their entirely their fault.

[fyatuk]

you didn't back up your source.

I know it's fun to run around saying you're right just because you think so, but it doesn't prove the claim you tried to make.

Never tried to prove it, but that doesn't make me wrong either :p:

And no, let's not pick that up again, I'm done with that for now.


actually it was mostly all their fault. I'd show the proof, but the threads have been deleted. If you ask Kori, she'll verify, although you'll probably still figure out a way to think it wasn't their entirely their fault.

I watched a lot of it, and it was quite a bit their fault. Definitely strongly on the majority side of it. But it wouldn't have gotten that bad if they other side had been less antagnonistic about everything. Originally the antagonization was funny, but you could see it was going to lead to something stupid a couple days before it did.

Regardless, it's not appropriate to discuss this here, so let's call it a thread. If you really want to continue, use PM.

[Winehole23]

Went to a UU congregation auction/fund-raiser this weekend. Nice people. Nothing religious binds them together per se, but they are all liberal.Was it Henry James who said civilization is little more than the social propriety of a third rate Boston colonial...?

Not just liberal, but uber-liberal, haut-liberal even.

I was maybe 11 or 12 when I went to the UU in SA. This would've been 1978-9. It definitely weirded me out, but in the end I liked their chili, and the bigger girls chased me around all night, so it wasn't a total loss.