Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $24,202
Woo hoo!! And the first 27% is in!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by monkfan

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Officer who berated driver loses job in St. George

    09/25/2007 2:59:52 PM PDT · 643 of 752
    monkfan to SubGeniusX

    way too funny.

  • Officer who berated driver loses job in St. George

    09/24/2007 1:17:09 PM PDT · 519 of 752
    monkfan to rednesss
    Someone with that kind of a hair trigger has no business being equipped with a loaded firearm and a badge.

    That's a fact.

    They need to add a psych eval to the interview process. This cop had all the stability of nitroglycerin.

  • Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years? (Challenge to Apostolicity)

    09/23/2007 5:44:41 AM PDT · 7,010 of 13,166
    monkfan to HarleyD; MarkBsnr; kosta50; Kolokotronis
    What I should have said is there are some truths that are far more fundamental to the faith than others. Some truths are the milk, some are the meat. Each of us has to decide where that line is.

    As a matter of practicality, the decisions needs to be congruous. If not, the line itself becomes a point of contention.

    [...what will you advise them to do? Get sprinkled?]
    That's a very fair question and one of the reasons I have not become a Presbyterian.

    Ok. What's the other reason?

    However, it all goes back to that line. To me the issue of free will is so paramount to the understanding of our faith. This heresy can be traced to just about every major error people hold today or ever held-and that's not an exaggeration.

    Free will is the root of most heresies? That's fantastic! No doubt in my mind, the RP are going to love you.

    Pick a heresy or a problem the church faces today and I'll trace it back to the idea that man is free; eschatology included.

    Ok. I pick chiliasm. :) Knock yourself out.

    The church realized for 1900 years that we were the new Israel until someone got some looney idea that God just loves people who rejected His Son and worship a god that is totally foreign to the God revealed in scripture.

    I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps you could post a reference?

    I would rather have a person be sprinkled and to understand God's glorious election and purpose for their life, than to watch people go through life being baptized thinking they were free to bounce around trying to do things to please God.

    Is there something else you'd rather they be doing?

  • Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years? (Challenge to Apostolicity)

    09/21/2007 5:50:37 PM PDT · 6,965 of 13,166
    monkfan to MarkBsnr
    If I might differ with you on one small aspect of society. We do pay inordinate amount of attention to something that is of supreme indifference. Sports.

    I'll meet you halfway: sports, in and of themselves, are not of great importance. Granted. But, the reason people argue about them because they care. As for why they care, I don't know. :)

  • Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years? (Challenge to Apostolicity)

    09/21/2007 4:23:19 PM PDT · 6,962 of 13,166
    monkfan to Dr. Eckleburg; MarkBsnr

    It’s not that big a deal.

    Relax. Have a marshmallow.

  • Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years? (Challenge to Apostolicity)

    09/21/2007 3:38:17 PM PDT · 6,959 of 13,166
    monkfan to HarleyD; MarkBsnr; kosta50
    Sure, that's true. And while we do hold very lively discussions on these topics most will tell you it doesn't make any difference.

    While I understand what you are trying to say, let's keep in mind a certain truth: actions speak louder than words. Normal people don't hold "very lively discussions" over topics that don't make any difference. Someone in the congregation obviously thinks it does and they're trying to tell you about it.

    These are more subtle points of view that have little to do with justification, sanctification, atonement, election, predestination, and all the other far more important things.

    While I'm not clear as to what all the other far more important things might be, I'll take your point. Nevertheless, the subject of eschatology is getting hotter by the minute and, as I opined before, it's only a matter of time before it comes to a head and causes a schism.

    I am very set in my ways on baptism but I can assure you, if a Reformed Presbyterian church opened up across the street from me, I would think nothing of leaving my Southern Baptist church.

    You have that luxury. You've already been baptized by immersion (or so I assume). However, if you start hanging your hat with the RP and, subsequently, you evangelize someone, what will you advise them to do? Get sprinkled? Also, the RP baptize infants, which is to say, they hold it up and show it some water. Are you ok with that?

  • Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years? (Challenge to Apostolicity)

    09/20/2007 10:05:31 AM PDT · 6,773 of 13,166
    monkfan to HarleyD; MarkBsnr; kosta50
    If there was a Reformed Presbyterian, Reformed Methodist, Reformed Baptist, and Reformed ???(oops I'm out of (valid) denominations) all we would probably argue about is whether we should dunk or sprinkle.

    Two points to make here. One, methods of baptism and their respective validity may be the hottest topic, but it's not the only topic. Eschatological beliefs vary widely, even among members of the same denomination, and the arguments that follow can get extremely heated. That no denomination has yet split along such lines, in my opinion, is only a matter of time.

    Two, the issue of baptism is no small issue, even among the so called Reformed. Back in the day, when I was arguing with such people about matters of eschatology [*ehem*], I had the good pleasure of a Baptist gentleman informing me, in a most candid manner, that my Presbyterian baptism was of absolutely no value whatsoever. Suffice it to say, he felt rather strongly about his position. And from what I've seen so far, these two groups are in no danger of reconciliation.

    In short, to say that Baptists and Presbyterians (/whoever) are only in schism over modes of baptism is not entirely unlike saying that Catholicism and Orthodoxy are only in schism over the filioque.

  • Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years? (Challenge to Apostolicity)

    09/19/2007 6:33:47 PM PDT · 6,727 of 13,166
    monkfan to kosta50

    This may be of some interest here...

    The scapegoat and Azazel. There is some debate as to the correct translation for the word `aza’zel (Strong #05799). Most translations render this word “scapegoat,” from the combination of the words `ez, “goat” (Strong #05795) and ‘azal, “to go away” (Strong #235). In Jewish tradition, however, Azazel was a fallen angel who was judged by God for his wickedness in leading other fallen angels and humans into sin. A record of this judgement is in the apocryphal/pseudepigraphal book of 1 Enoch, in a passage that fleshes out the events of Genesis 6. [A, E] There are no capital letters in Hebrew, so there is no indication from the text as to whether the word `aza’zel is a proper name or not, so there is speculation as to which meaning was intended. Is it possible that both meanings are important? We will explore both meanings for the purpose of fleshing out the significance of the scapegoat.

    What does the idea of scapegoat, or sending away this goat as a substitute for sin mean?

    Before we explore what significance, if any, is attached to the name “Azazel,” we should do a little background in 1 Enoch. The book was written likely by several authors in the second century BC, so it clearly postdates Leviticus 16 in its written form. However, Jude, the half-brother of Yeshua, quotes a portion of it in his epistle as prophecy, attributing this prophecy to Enoch. (See Jude 14-15.) By crediting this prophecy to Enoch, it appears that the book was known at least in oral tradition since Enoch’s day. In my opinion, this book carries some degree of weight, but at the very least, and most importantly for our study here, it provides insight into the Hebrew mind and traditions in Biblical times. The only question that remains is whether or not Azazel went by another name before the Book of Enoch was written. Let’s assume for now that it was the same. What connection and significance might Azazel have to the scapegoat? In the book of Enoch, Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, and Uriel, four archangels bring this charge to Yahuwah,

    “’Thou seest what Azazel hath done, who hath taught all unrighteousness on earth and revealed the eternal secrets which were (preserved) in heaven, which men were striving to learn.” (1 Enoch 9:6b-7a)

    “And again the Lord said to Raphael ‘Bind Azazel hand and foot, and cast him into the darkness: and make an opening in the desert, which is in Dudael, and cast him therein. And place upon him rough and jagged rocks, and cover him with darkness, and let him abide there for ever, and cover his face that he may not see light. And on the day of the great judgement he shall be cast into the fire. And heal the earth which the angels have corrupted, and proclaim the healing of the earth, that they may heal the plague, and that all the children of men may not perish through all the secret things that the Watchers have disclosed and have taught their sons. And the whole earth has been corrupted through the works that were taught by Azazel: to him ascribe all sin.’” (1 Enoch 10:4b-9a, underline added)

    There are two things to note here. One aspect of sending the scapegoat away into the wilderness “for Azazel” was that it was going to the Abyss in which Azazel was cast. The other aspect is sin. What was placed on the scapegoat, and how does that relate to Azazel?

  • Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years? (Challenge to Apostolicity)

    09/19/2007 6:00:45 PM PDT · 6,726 of 13,166
    monkfan to kosta50
    What we have now are only regurgitated heresies of the past.

    I saw a protestant tract once that traced it's roots back to the Montanists. I kid you not.

    Stay frosty! :)

  • Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years? (Challenge to Apostolicity)

    09/18/2007 7:31:50 PM PDT · 6,604 of 13,166
    monkfan to kosta50
    There is a presumption, however, in what St. Paul is saying, namely that God will punish our enemies because they are our enemies.

    If a person assumes themselves to be a member of the elect, as some tend to do, then perhaps it's only "natural" to also assume that the enemy is reprobate. In which case, something reminiscent of fire and brimstone might seem like a "perfect" solution.

  • Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years? (Challenge to Apostolicity)

    09/18/2007 7:07:10 PM PDT · 6,603 of 13,166
    monkfan to blue-duncan

    The footnotes of my RSV reflect the same:

    Regarding Romans 12:19... “The vindication of justice is God’s prerogative, not ours (Dt.32.35). We are neither wise enough nor good enough to punish our enemies justly.”

    Regarding Romans 12:20... “To heap burning coals..., is to make the enemy feel ashamed by meeting his evil with good (Pr.25.21-22).”

    Regarding Proverbs 25:21-22... “Heap coals of fire, i.e. torture is less effective than mercy, or the best way to take vengeance on one’s enemy is to be merciful to him (Rom.12.20; Mt.5.44-45).”

    The interpretation I’ve been using here is from a book by David Dale entitled “Upon This Rock” (not to be confused with other titles of the same name). Unfortunately, I don’t have it handy as I mailed it to my grandfather. In fact, that’s how I ended up with a copy of “Manual of Reformed Doctrine” by Louis Berkhof, B.D.; we swapped. It’s probably anybody’s guess as to who got the better deal. :)

  • Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years? (Challenge to Apostolicity)

    09/18/2007 5:45:25 PM PDT · 6,597 of 13,166
    monkfan to Dr. Eckleburg
    You're chopping off the part of God's word that's uncomfortable for you...

    No. That was you. You ignored the preceding verses that set the context.

    As explained by the verse in context...

    In your fabricated context maybe, but not the context in which it was handed down.

    "coals of fire" further distinguishes God's children from those not numbered among His family, those who are enemies of His children and thus, enemies of Him

    Apparently, you assume that any enemy of yours is automatically an enemy of God. Is your judgment really that good? More to the point, is everyone else's? If the enemy in question is also a member of your church, who gets the coals?

    Indeed, the Greek for "burning coals" is our English word anthrax...

    Sooo... because we use the Greek word for "coals" to identify a disease that produces skin lesions that look like coals, you think that somehow proves that Paul was talking about putting a pox on someone. Is that right?

    Just out of curiosity, what's the Hebrew word for "burning coals"?

  • Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years? (Challenge to Apostolicity)

    09/15/2007 5:37:34 PM PDT · 6,336 of 13,166
    monkfan to MarkBsnr

    As God wills it


  • Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years? (Challenge to Apostolicity)

    09/15/2007 4:42:06 PM PDT · 6,335 of 13,166
    monkfan to Dr. Eckleburg; kosta50
    Lighting some thing on fire, not someone.

    It's an hyperbole. A figure of speech. But I repeat myself.

    Let's see the context of the verse...

    If you are sincerely interested in context, you need to at least start at verse 9. That's where Paul starts this particular line of thinking, and what he says from that point sets the tone for the verses in question. Better yet, just read chapter 12 in it's entirety. But if not, at least go back to verse 9.

    9) Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good.
    10) Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another;
    11) not lagging in diligence, fervent in spirit, serving the Lord;
    12) rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly in prayer;
    13) distributing to the needs of the saints, given to hospitality.
    14) Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.
    15) Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep.
    16) Be of the same mind toward one another. Do not set your mind on high things, but associate with the humble. Do not be wise in your own opinion.
    17) Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men.
    18) If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men.
    19) Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance in Mine, I will repay," says the Lord.
    20) Therefore

    "If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
    If he is thirsty, give him a drink.
    For in so doing you will heap
    coals of fire on his head"

    21) Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

    Now, if you are determined to believe that the quoted proverb in verse 20 was intended to emphasis God's wrath on your enemy, as mentioned in 19, then a link between 19 and 20 will appear plain as day. But if you were to interpret the proverb as I do, that benevolence can break the cycle of violence, then the link simply isn't there. In other words, the link you point out between 19 and 20 only appears to be there because you interpret the heaping of coals to be an act of hostility. Since you need to prove your interpretation to prove the link, you can't use the link to prove your interpretation; circular reasoning.

    So, this is where the other verses come in handy. We can look at the tone of the message Paul is sending. He say be good to each other; be good like this; be good like that. Be good and let God handle the enemy. Your interpretation has Paul advising them to be good to their enemy so their enemy will suffer. That's disturbing. I think you mistake Paul for Poe (as in Edgar Allan). Verse 14 says "Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse." But you insist that Paul turns around 180 degrees and tells us to do 'good' so as to bring a curse on the enemy's head.

    And He most certainly will -- by "heaping holes of fire on their heads."

    Sounds like a curse alright.

    Frankly, I don't think I've ever heard a verse so misunderstood as your take on this one.

    Should I be surprised?

    Of course I guess if you insist on thinking God loves everyone, then floods, pestilence, disease and destruction are all divine love tokens, too, and not a result of God's wrath.

    Yes and no, but another subject for another day.

    Remind me never to tell you I'm feeling a little chilly. 8~)

    Apparently, if I were still a member of the PCA, your fears might be justified. :P

  • Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years? (Challenge to Apostolicity)

    09/14/2007 7:36:54 PM PDT · 6,289 of 13,166
    monkfan to MarkBsnr
    Maybe I’m predestined to undergo a Scriptural Groundhog Day, in which I have to convince the Calvinists of their errors on a daily basis.

    I can't speak to your predestination, but if you remain in these threads for any length of time, that's pretty much what you have to look forward to. On the upside, it's great exercise. Abeit, in futility, but still. :)

  • Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years? (Challenge to Apostolicity)

    09/14/2007 6:40:34 PM PDT · 6,288 of 13,166
    monkfan to Dr. Eckleburg; kosta50
    "Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head." -- Romans 12:20
    Is the act of "heaping coals of fire" on someone's head a pleasant thing?

    It is if you like being warm at night. Consider, for a moment, that this proverb dates back to a time when keeping warm typically involved lighting something on fire. So, figuratively speaking, you toss coals on someone's head, you warm them up. And that is a good thing. You repay your enemy with kindness and God rewards you for your act of charity.

    In Romans 12:9-21, Paul makes the point that we should be consistently good and, in keeping with that, not return evil with evil but with good. The idea that this action (re: coals) will cause harm to the person is inconsistent with the rest of what was said.

    In any case, whatever Paul preaches, it must be consistent with this:

    "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
    But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you,
    that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.
    For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
    And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so?
    Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect."

    (Matthew 5:43-48, NKJV)

  • Alcoholic energy drink trend raises concerns

    09/07/2007 12:14:32 PM PDT · 86 of 93
    monkfan to thefactor
    Or, more to the point, they need to be told what not to do. Such as, don't use this product in a manner inconsistent with it's labeling. Or, as you wisely point out, don't drink 12 in 2 hours. Once upon a time, that would have passed as common sense.

    Sadly, this guy appears to be trying to leverage the popular misconception that "if it's not illegal, it must be okay [read: endorsed]". I wonder how many people pickle their liver each year thinking this to be true.

  • Alcoholic energy drink trend raises concerns

    09/07/2007 11:32:05 AM PDT · 84 of 93
    monkfan to Eric Blair 2084
    V2 President James Goldstein said:
    "Spirits are meticulously reviewed by the government," he said. "The liquor industry is one of the most heavily regulated industries. I don't think the government would put [sic] something on the market that they consider unhealthy for people to consume."


  • “Do not post to me”

    08/31/2007 8:13:26 PM PDT · 540 of 3,060
    monkfan to Admin Moderator
    I have ignored multiple requests to stop posting to myself

    Passive self-aggression?

  • Why I Left My Beta Husband

    08/29/2007 3:51:32 PM PDT · 300 of 326
    monkfan to Drew68; writmeister
    He was a freeloading bum who sat at home all day!

    That assumes her story to be accurate. Another possibility is that she exaggerates his shortcomings. Much like ex-spouses tend to do.

  • Libertarians to Conservatives: Drop Dead

    08/22/2007 6:25:52 PM PDT · 394 of 445
    monkfan to sergeantdave

    200 pages? That’s some [messed] up [stuff] right there.

    Maybe it’s the script to “La Fin Absolue du Monde.”

  • Time Travel Machine Outlined

    08/21/2007 2:25:03 PM PDT · 71 of 77
    monkfan to Redcitizen
    "Inside this donut-shaped vacuum, space-time could get bent upon itself using focused gravitational fields to form a closed time-like curve."

    Umm.. yeah. The key word here being "focused." Hold that thought a sec...

    "A number of obstacles remain, however. The gravitational fields required to make such a closed time-like curve would have to be very strong, "on the order of what you might find close to a black hole," Ori told LiveScience."

    Uhh... you know how the gravitational field of the moon causes the water on Earth to move in what we call tides? Well, the gravitational field of a black hole is so incredibly strong that it's tidal forces affect matter at the atomic level.

    "Even if time machines were technically feasible, the gravitational fields involved need to be manipulated in very specific, accurate ways, and Ori said his calculations suggest any time machine could be very unstable, meaning "the tiniest deviations might keep one from working..."

    OR... might cause it to atomize the entire planet. Whoops.

    On second thought, maybe we should work on interstellar travel and colonization first. You know, just in case.

  • Too fat? Common virus may be to blame: study

    08/21/2007 10:56:53 AM PDT · 189 of 193
    monkfan to Paved Paradise
    I will grant you that many factors go into long life, but let’s face it, we have some control over our fate and being heavy is normally not a route to longevity

    I actually agree. Obesity is hard on the body.

    I think the biggest hurdle for people trying to lose weight (and/or just stay healthy) is that we don't really know how to eat well anymore. A lot of the products on the shelf are little more than processed junk and that includes some or even most of what's being passed off as health food. Also, people tend to forget that not all calories are the same. There's something to be said for the nutritional content, or lack thereof, in any given product. But I think good nutrition is far more complicated than what gets printed on the side of a box.

    Ironically, the processed food industry was born (at least partly) out of a concern for healthy eating. Working women needed a way to feed their kids something decent. Obviously, they didn't have a lot of time left to spend in the kitchen. Processed food was the solution. This has become a very large industry. But somewhere along the way it's become more about money and less about health, as evidenced by all the trash being marketed as food.

  • Too fat? Common virus may be to blame: study

    08/20/2007 6:16:36 PM PDT · 142 of 193
    monkfan to Paved Paradise; oneamericanvoice
    Okay, now I know of two people. I’ll start my list.

    Since you're starting a list...

    My mother's parents were both obese, albeit mostly in their later years (post 50 or 60, I think). My grandfather was almost perfectly round when he died (natural causes) at the ripe ol' age of 94. My grandmother didn't get quite that big. She died (cancer) a little earlier, around the age of 90 or so. My mother, not coincidentally, is getting somewhat portly (to be kind) in her late 60's. She's a long way from dead, so far as I can tell. I have a step-mother in Florida that's always been larger than life. She's in her 70's now and in real danger of kicking the bucket. She drags an oxygen bottle wherever she goes. I suspect that has more to do with her past smoking habit than anything else (but I'm guessing). My dad is also overweight by more than a few pounds. No doubt this is a factor in his high blood pressure which, in turn, was likely a primary factor in the stroke he had a few weeks ago. He's in his mid 60's. If he behaves himself, he might make it to his 70's.

    Make of it what you will.

  • Too fat? Common virus may be to blame: study

    08/20/2007 5:00:12 PM PDT · 135 of 193
    monkfan to Responsibility2nd

    I must have caught this virus right after I quit smoking. Go figure.

  • Rare dead star found near Earth

    08/20/2007 4:30:21 PM PDT · 70 of 217
    monkfan to bajabaja

    Asimov wrote some non-fiction on this subject that’s rather easy to understand. I read one where he discusses the different atomic forces in layman’s terms, but can’t think of the exact title. Sorry, that’s probably not much help.

    “A Brief History of Time” by Stephen W. Hawking might be of some interest to you. Worth a look, I think.

  • Cat dropping coffee is hit

    08/20/2007 12:35:31 PM PDT · 21 of 30
    monkfan to Daffynition

    File under “reasons to drink tea”

  • Feds' Porn Ultimatum

    08/20/2007 12:30:06 PM PDT · 204 of 262
    monkfan to SubGeniusX
    There are 10 types of people in the world, those who understand Binary and those who don't.


    There are 2 types of people in this world; those who divide people into two types and those who don't.

  • Feds' Porn Ultimatum

    08/20/2007 10:01:27 AM PDT · 183 of 262
    monkfan to ellery

    Will Paris Hilton be making the list? Pamela and Tommy Lee?

    If a sexually explicit video is released by “mistake”, is it any less pornographic? Wouldn’t there still be the pressing question of “how old are these people?” (How old was Paris at the time of that video, anyway?)

    I wonder how many people have video-taped or photographed their own sex-capades for posterity. Imagine the fallout if the war on porn ever escalates to the point where the war on drugs is currently at.

    This could get very ugly.

  • Feds' Porn Ultimatum

    08/20/2007 9:22:59 AM PDT · 178 of 262
    monkfan to BraveMan

    I’d ride that.

  • 2 deaths at Ozzfest, arrests lead to booze ban in parking lot

    08/17/2007 6:09:40 PM PDT · 57 of 77
    monkfan to Global2010

    IIRC, Ozzy couldn’t get booked with Lollapalooza, so Sharon invented Ozzfest. Seems he’s rubbed a few people the wrong way.

  • 2 deaths at Ozzfest, arrests lead to booze ban in parking lot

    08/17/2007 6:01:30 PM PDT · 56 of 77
    monkfan to Eric Blair 2084

    Don’t feel too bad. I went to a Neil Diamond concert once.

  • Fighting Pornography: A New Approach

    08/17/2007 2:44:36 PM PDT · 428 of 443
    monkfan to Hemorrhage; CitizenUSA

    “No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.” —Thomas Jefferson to Francis Gilmer, 1816.

    “He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself.” ~Thomas Paine

    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.” — C. S. Lewis

  • Video: Geraldo cringes everytime he sees Michelle [Malkin] on Fox

    08/17/2007 11:59:56 AM PDT · 47 of 87
    monkfan to PajamaTruthMafia
    "He cringes because I’ll call out his bullcrap to his face without feeling any need to soften the blow or suck up in a collegial manner. He’s a know-it-all who knows nothing about the deportation abyss–and he masks his fundamental ignorance with incoherent indignance."

    That's one for the archives.

    Go Michelle!

  • Fighting Pornography: A New Approach

    08/17/2007 10:51:28 AM PDT · 413 of 443
    monkfan to GraniteStateConservative

    Ahh! Thank you. I see what you mean now. And I share your dilemma!

  • Fighting Pornography: A New Approach

    08/17/2007 9:50:14 AM PDT · 410 of 443
    monkfan to GraniteStateConservative

    I’m afraid you have me at a disadvantage. I don’t know who or what X42 is. :(

  • Fighting Pornography: A New Approach

    08/17/2007 9:41:58 AM PDT · 408 of 443
    monkfan to GulfBreeze
    Again, I have no idea what you are getting at... Is there a point to be made behind your meaningless ramble here

    Don't piss on my head and tell me it's raining. It doesn't take a genius to catch my drift. You want me to flesh out an idea, that's fine, just ask me. But save the charade.

    It’s really none of your business if they do is it? I mean [blah blah *snip*]

    You're missing my point entirely. Again. I'll try to be more direct:

    I’m asking you where the line should be drawn.

    Really, GB, that's as direct as I can get. Previously, you said:

    "...breaking down the public morality is one of many steps towards communism.

    Assuming that's true, how far do we go to ensure that public morality is maintained? That is my question to you. Everything else I have said or asked is a means to this end. So far, you have yet to respond.

  • Fighting Pornography: A New Approach

    08/16/2007 7:43:55 PM PDT · 392 of 443
    monkfan to GulfBreeze
    1) This has nothing to do with changing the law.


    It is all about:
    a) Enforcing the laws that are there now.

    Hmm. That's an interesting concept. I wonder if it would work with speeding. Oops, sorry. I was thinking out loud there.

    b) Changing the public perception of pornography and acceptance of pornography in its midst.

    That fair. Innocuous even. Can we expect them to work towards longer skirts and higher necklines? Is it too early to say goodbye to hiphuggers?

    I'm asking you where the line should be drawn.

    2) All of the things you mentioned are illegal in certain states.

    I'm not aware of any state having a law against premarital sex. Please, enlighten me.

    Do you have a problem with people being required to keep the terms of their contracts?

    No. But I sometimes have a problem with people referring to marriage as a contract. It's not. It's a sacrament of the church. Oh, wait. I forgot. Not everybody goes to church.

    So much for enforcing morals.

  • Tropical Storm Erin

    08/16/2007 3:28:31 PM PDT · 175 of 198
    monkfan to SouthTexas
    Not good and radar looks like it’s still coming. A little break here and there, like that’s going to help. :)

    I was thinking the same thing. But it had that "now or never" look to it. I left the port just as the rain was starting back up. Worked out rather well.

  • Tropical Storm Erin

    08/16/2007 1:37:48 PM PDT · 164 of 198
    monkfan to Tuxedo

    Heh. Pontoons would be nice. I could take Breas Bayou home. Avoid the freeway altogether. :)

    Good luck to you!

  • Tropical Storm Erin

    08/16/2007 1:31:34 PM PDT · 163 of 198
    monkfan to CindyDawg

    Yup yup. Lots of water in that area.

    I live on a 500 year flood plane between two bayous. So, the good news is the house stays dry. The bad news is I can’t get back to it without a snorkel. ;)

  • Tropical Storm Erin

    08/16/2007 1:08:23 PM PDT · 156 of 198
    monkfan to SouthTexas

    Ya! I live on the SW side, so I’ve got a lot of puddles to jump to get home. I’m guessing Wayside -> OST -> Main is not going to work today. Hello 610 loop!

  • Tropical Storm Erin

    08/16/2007 12:54:27 PM PDT · 151 of 198
    monkfan to NautiNurse

    I dunno. But that’s an interesting question.

  • Tropical Storm Erin

    08/16/2007 12:45:51 PM PDT · 148 of 198
    monkfan to NautiNurse; Rte66; SouthTexas; CindyDawg

    South Houston is simply drowning. I’m stuck here at the Port of Houston where I work. The water is just too high, even for my truck. Sooo.. we’re just watching all the crazyness on the news, munching on junk from the vending machine. Can’t work and can’t leave. Ha!

    If only I had a canoe.

  • Fighting Pornography: A New Approach

    08/15/2007 6:13:54 PM PDT · 85 of 443
    monkfan to dan1123
    I think that the argument would be that wide acceptance of pornography has led to premarital sex and such.

    Generally, when we speak of one evil thing leading to another, it's a lesser evil that leads to a greater evil. So, here we have people saying that porn leads to premarital sex and is consequently destructive. Therefore, they argue, porn should be banned. But no mention of banning the greater evil of premarital sex. Or any of the other dysfunctional behaviors they claim are spawned by porn. I'm not sure what to make of that.

    But I don’t think that the reasons listed are the principles they are operating out of. They are just ways to get porn sites shut down because of other reasons.

    I suspect the same.

  • Fighting Pornography: A New Approach

    08/15/2007 4:53:57 PM PDT · 71 of 443
    monkfan to GulfBreeze; Wiz
    Fighting pornography is not any step toward communism as a matte rof fact if you will read Karl Marx works you’ll find out breaking down the public morality is one of many steps towards communism.

    Are we going to ban premarital sex too? I mean, hey, as long as we're shoring up public morality and all. How about extra-marital affairs? The article lists "disregard for marital vows" as one of the horrible side effects of porn, along with the "breakup of the family through divorce". So, why aren't these same people also pushing for a ban on divorce? After all, aren't these the real problems?

  • Chandler police dog left in car dies

    08/14/2007 12:04:16 PM PDT · 64 of 94
    monkfan to yorkie
    "To be charged with animal cruelty under state law, someone must intentionally or recklessly leave an animal in a vehicle when injury or death likely would occur."

    [*grabbing dictionary...*]

    One entry found for reckless.

    Main Entry: reck·less
    Pronunciation: 're-kl&s
    Function: adjective
    1 : marked by lack of proper caution : careless of consequences
    2 : IRRESPONSIBLE {reckless charges}

    Sooo... how is leaving a dog in a car for 13 hours on a remarkably hot day not reckless?

  • Ron Paulism--Moral and Intellectual Confusion

    08/04/2007 9:17:07 AM PDT · 356 of 384
    monkfan to xzins
    I FIRMLY believe that Offense in war is the best Defense. And international relations is really just war at a different level.

    Soooo... peace, to you, is really just "war at a different level"?

    Is that right? Chaplain?

  • Circumcision May Not Reduce Sensation

    08/03/2007 8:14:58 PM PDT · 89 of 106
    monkfan to allmendream
    Eunichs used to save their missing parts in a little bag so that they could be buried “whole”.

    But... don't those parts already come in a bag?

  • Being Unhealthy Could Cost You -- Money(COmpany fining employees for being fat)

    08/03/2007 1:57:41 PM PDT · 89 of 164
    monkfan to Gay State Conservative; angkor; Calpernia
    angkor: And now for the appeal to authority: my former GP in Lincoln - also Harvard Med - wanted me to...

    GSC: I'm not sure of exactly what you're trying to say...

    An Appeal to Authority is a formal error in logic. The sole base of your previous argument was the credntial of your sources. angkor was simply making a demonstration