Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Wachowski Brother- Director of ''Matrix Reloaded' [Not the Married One] In Process of Changing Sex
The Hot Button ^ | Week of May 30-June 6 2003 | David Poland

Posted on 06/04/2003 11:35:08 AM PDT by ewing

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-205 next last
To: Paul C. Jesup
If you know the reputation of G_d but I know a different reputation of G_d the difference is the perception we have of His reasoning in His action/s.

It is not the interpretation of the action but the perception of the reasoning for the action that dictates the view you take of G_ds reputation.

Therefore your perception of His reputation really has no value to anyone but you and those who wish to know you. It is not the reality of Who G_d is or what He does.

That is why He told us things like; Man's sin nature was the cause of the decay of His perfect creation. Once man choose selfish sin we unleashed (invited) death, destruction and pain.

G_d warned and warns us of the consequences of sin, yet we take advantage of that free will He gave us and do as we please. G_d wants only good and perfect things and lives for His children, the brotherhood of man chooses to reject that.

161 posted on 06/05/2003 1:16:20 PM PDT by CyberCowboy777 (Professional FReeper. Do not attempt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: CyberCowboy777
Since you refuse to understand the difference between reasoning and reputation. I am not going to continue talk to you. I have better things to do.
162 posted on 06/05/2003 1:40:40 PM PDT by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: Zavien Doombringer
you might want to review the parable of the talents.
163 posted on 06/05/2003 3:04:16 PM PDT by Woahhs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup
Your question is a catch-22 for me no matter how I answer it.

Note that I asked the question to make you think about the your example, not to paint you as an evil person.

164 posted on 06/05/2003 11:10:51 PM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
Note that I asked the question to make you think about the your example, not to paint you as an evil person

So you admit it was a catch 22.

165 posted on 06/06/2003 11:09:21 AM PDT by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup
So you admit it was a catch 22.

It's a Catch-22 only in that either your premise or your ability to accept the implications of your premise won't allow you to give a satisfactory answer. If you had no qualms about calling deformed children "mistakes", you'd be able to answer it. Similarly, you could say that they weren't mistakes, which would undermine your point. Your choice. I'm not suggesting that you pick one answer or the other but you built the Catch-22 into your example. If you can't answer my question, which is a basic "yes" or "no" type question, you should take a good look at what you really think about this subject to find the way out. The alternative is to answer that deformed children aren't mistakes but their deformities, themselves, are. I think that would be rather difficult, since we are using their deformity as a critical part of their identity, but you could try that, too. (I think that questioning assumptions is healthy for everyone, hence my screen name.)

166 posted on 06/06/2003 11:55:25 AM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup
You?re the one here who posts only conjecture. Your posts have had no substance in them, just attack, attack, attack. Go crawl back under your rock troll.

Ah-ha! The old "I'm rubber, you're glue" strategy! Oh you rhetorical genius, you.

It's got to be tough going through life both stupid and vain (Yeah, yeah, "I know you are but what am I" blah, blah, blah.)

If I'm a troll, ping the moderator tough guy. You'll have fun selling THAT bit of conceit.

167 posted on 06/06/2003 1:41:57 PM PDT by Woahhs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions; Paul C. Jesup
(I think that questioning assumptions is healthy for everyone, hence my screen name.)

Words to live by! 1Thess.5:21 is the single most overlooked verse in the entire Bible.

The problem for poor Mr. Jesup is he's not real clear on what an "assumption" is. If you follow his posts through this thread, it becomes quickly apparent his belligerence and aggressiveness comes not because those challenges aren't merited, but FROM being challenged.

As you have him on the horns of a dilema, he will no doubt either ignore you, or posture himself as the offended dandy.

168 posted on 06/06/2003 2:07:30 PM PDT by Woahhs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Woahhs
I loath selective interpretation of the Bible. It is so hypocritical.
169 posted on 06/06/2003 2:27:31 PM PDT by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup
It's not an interpretation Cowboy...try reading the text. Have you ever met a cliche' you didn't like. I wear your loathing as a badge of honor.
170 posted on 06/06/2003 2:35:01 PM PDT by Woahhs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: Woahhs
Tell me, do you wear clothes made of different fabrics?
171 posted on 06/06/2003 2:45:52 PM PDT by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup
Tell me, do you wear clothes made of different fabrics?

Not a relevant question. Try again.

172 posted on 06/06/2003 3:25:35 PM PDT by Woahhs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Woahhs
Just as I thought, you are guilty of selective interpretation.
173 posted on 06/06/2003 4:11:16 PM PDT by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup
Just as I thought, you are guilty of selective interpretation.

No. You see, that's why you need to listen to our FRiend Question Assumptions. You assume because I know the Bible, I subscribe to the Bible. Your attempt to place me in some sort of conflict with Leviticus has no bearing on the regard due to a sage piece of advice from Thessalonians. As such, the question is irrelevant, and shows your stunning lack of intellectual creativity. The Leviticus thing is an old canard, it's easily disputed...and it doesn't even fit here.

When I told you not to try to stereotype me, I wasn't blustering. It was a quid pro quo for your "advice." You literally are not smart enough.

174 posted on 06/06/2003 4:24:40 PM PDT by Woahhs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Woahhs
You literally are not smart enough.

That coming from someone who has given no opinion, but instead only, attack, attack, attack.

Come on, admit your true feelings on the subject of this thread. You have nothing to lose by doing so.

175 posted on 06/06/2003 4:35:30 PM PDT by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup
Where in a medical textbook can I find the term "female core identity?" I hope it is not there. This seems to be another made-up term to legitimize a philosophical construct that only exists in the minds of those who condone such behavior.
176 posted on 06/10/2003 7:43:56 AM PDT by brotherv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: brotherv
Where in a medical textbook can I find the term "female core identity?" I hope it is not there. This seems to be another made-up term to legitimize a philosophical construct that only exists in the minds of those who condone such behavior.

The technical term for the region of brain I am talking about is the BSTc region of the brain.

Here is a link to the study: http://www.symposion.com/ijt/ijtc0106.htm

The study was limited, but the autopsies of various people in studing this region of the brain had some interesting results dealing with both transsexuals and homosexuals in comparison to heterosexuals.

This study does provide limited evidence that points to a very likely possiblity that this problem is inborn.

177 posted on 06/10/2003 2:32:50 PM PDT by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup
The proper meanings are USED in my comments……..to make the point. I used reasoning and reputation both properly and in a coherent statement of thought.

You refuse to read the entire comment or refuse to concede the point.

Fine, but do not attempt to make up stories about my lack of understanding of the English language.

178 posted on 06/10/2003 4:34:21 PM PDT by CyberCowboy777 (Professional FReeper. Do not attempt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Paul C. Jesup
G_d does not make mistakes………………

…….but you have certainly proved that man does.
179 posted on 06/10/2003 4:41:03 PM PDT by CyberCowboy777 (Professional FReeper. Do not attempt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: CyberCowboy777
Attacking my gammar means you cannot find anything wrong with my statements. :p
180 posted on 06/10/2003 5:07:53 PM PDT by Paul C. Jesup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200201-205 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson