I think homosexuality is a form of mental illness.

- - -

Well then, here's a couple lists of non-human animals that consistently display "mental illness".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anima...sexual_behavior
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mamma...sexual_behavior

Sinners.

Sour, I don't mean any disrespect, you seem to have some sense of a brain, but you also seem to think that Wikipedia is a real resource. At the very least, let Wiki sit around for 2000 years or so and get translated a few hundred times, then you can quote the scripture of wikipedia.

- - -

No disrespect taken.

I'm not doing a research paper. I'm using the Wiki entries to quickly point out a fact.
That many,many non-human animals display homosexual behavior. It's common knowledge so a source isn't really necessary anyway.

I am proud to be heterosexual. When I look at my son, I know that he is the most beautiful thing in this world since the birth of the Saviour.

- - -

I've always been curious about people's sense of pride in things that they didn't choose.
It's like what does it mean to say: "I'm PROUD to be an American"?

Or "I am PROUD to be heterosexual".

And if homosexuality is a "mental illness", do you think that homosexuals CHOOSE to have the "mental illness".

Perhaps the choice is part of the illness?

But deciding to be gay happens all the time. For instance, gay porn. People decide to try a little gayness, decide they like it, the rest is history. Ever see a girls gone wild video? Two chicks making out cause they know all the guys rooting them on think it's hot... ever see a couple penguins do that?

Even life long homogays that claim to be homosexual their whole lives... at some point they had to decide that they were gay and come out of the closet and make it official. At some point there, a decision was made. I'm not attracted to girls, I must be gay. Hey guess what- I'm gay!

I think it's funny when people use animals as proof that homosexuality is completely natural. We truly don't know why two animals from the same sex display homosexual type behavior. There could be THOUSANDS of different reasons. But a homosexual human, well, that person is only attracted to members of the same species, therefore, it must be true in animals that display similar behavior. Riiight.

We don't know how bees communicate, or how butterflies find their way, or what tells a salmon where to go to spawn, or how long sharks can live... etc etc etc etc multiplied by 100 to the 10th power. But because my dog who is female, humps another dog who is female, then by Allah, gayness must be natural. Just more junk science to accompany man-made global warming and the theory of evolution.

Personally, I don't really care. You can keep the zealots, but any normal peeps who are gay, I could care less about their orientation. I'm not entirely convinced that homosexuality is even sin. Sexual immorality is a sin, and straight folks partake of that one all the time. I say take the log of your own eye and just handle your business.

- - -

There are animals - other than human - that mate for life with members of the same sex and IGNORE the opposite sex.
It's not "junk science".... it's a brute fact of life.

No one was talking about porn or sexual "immorality" as far as I could tell.
Apparently, the topic was homosexuality and heterosexuality, not "homogays".

But I am heartened by your abandonment of Biblical bigotry.

So there's a difference between gay sex and gay sex with cameras rolling?

And again, IT IS junk science. You have no idea why animals "mate for life" with other members of the same sex OR if you've been around 24/7/365 when he was sneaking off to get some from a girl. Absolutely no idea. You ASSUME it's because there are homogay animals. That ain't science. Far, far from it.

- - -

Are you serious with this? You can't be, can you?

I'm not talking about WHY same-sex animals mate for life. Just that they DO.
Geez man... why be in denial of things that are clearly true?
While we're not watching, these animals could be doing algebra problems too.... it's just that there's no evidence of that.
Just like there's no evidence that some of these same-sex animal couples engage in sex with the opposite sex.

Liberace could have been a raging heterosexual.... gosh... we weren't around to see what he was up to 24/7.

Seriously dude... I almost posted the bunny with the pancake on its head.

- - -

Why do you even bring "cameras" and "porn" into the discussion?
We were talking about homosexuality and heterosexuality.

Sure, there are people that "act" gay for cameras or have gay sex on camera.
So what?

What has that got to do with non-human animals that prefer same-sex intercourse?

Umm.. Liberace was a flaming homo, admitted, flaming homo.

You're missing the point.

Animals having sex with the same gender could be doing it for a variety of reasons- dominance, competition, confusion... whatever. Lot's of different reasons. Unless you can speak animal and can ascertain from them, that some animals are only sexually attracted to animals of the same sex, you're only guessing, assuming, spit balling.

The WHY is the most important part of this discussion. And you have no idea WHY same sex animals mate with one another.

So what? Gay sex is gay sex amigo. Porn or otherwise.

Homosexuality as defined by Webster: 1 : the quality or state of being homosexual 2 : erotic activity with another of the same sex

Therefore, as I pointed out, people choose to engage in homosexual behavior all the time. Some times, they DECIDE that they actually prefer it. That's a choice. It's a ridiculous notion to think that some people don't choose to be gay. It happens all the time. How many people? I don't know.

- - -

But YOU do, of course.

You say it's a "choice".

- - -

Then the animals are CHOOSING it too, right?
Or are the animals REALLY just confused and mentally ill heterosexuals?

Listen to yourself.

- - -

The WHY is a different subject. Like you say, I have no idea as to WHY.

Either way...

Non-human animals.. MANY of them.... engage in - AND PREFER - homosexual behavior.
It's a FACT.. not "junk science".

The point is that non-human animals display a preference for same-sex relationships. In other words, it's not just a human "choice", it's a NON-HUMAN animal "choice" as well.

That's all I'm saying.

And if he were to come out as being gay to you?

Animals are just that.....ANIMALS.....they will hump whatever is closest when the are feeling randy......not too many people walk around humping legs, stuffed animals, other species (rottweiler on a cat).....animals don't know restraint, which is why you see "gay animals" that also procreate.....when an animal feels the urge they satiate themselves....wow dave, thought a smart guy like yourself could figure this one out

- - -

Dude.

There are many individual non-human animals, that do not procreate and seem to prefer homosexual relations ALL the time.
Ergo: evidence shows that they IGNORE members of the opposite sex and mate for life with a same-sex individual.

Why is that so hard to friggin' understand?
It's not rocket science.

Geez... pirates were known to bugger their cabin boys when women were not available. Look at people in prison.... many start displaying homosexual behavior, because their preferred type of partner is not available. The urge doesn't go away and they "satiate" themselves. In other words, they'll try to "hump" what's closest when feeling "randy".

My uncle is gay. His partner was gay (he passed away). They were together for 40 years.
My uncle's partner had two kids from before he met my uncle. He was able to procreate with a woman, but he preferred men.
The point being is that some non-human animals as well as some humans display consistent homosexual preferences.
It's a fact.

I don't know why it seems so difficult for some here to wrap their heads around it.
Is it because then it's not as easy to bash gays for being "mentally ill" or "immoral" or something?

Wow....this from you.....an argument from popularity...or anecdotal as they say........so your "uncle" is on the same ground as an inmate or pirate?

good argument

and by the way....those are all CHOICES that are being made to bugger the same sex cause there ain't nothing better around

good one dave....keep em coming

- - -

It's an argument from evidence. It doesn't matter how popular the evidence is. There is extensive evidence that some non-human animals ALSO prefer same-sex relationships. It's not anecdotal evidence, it's been filmed and scientifically documented.
It's a brute fact.

No, my uncle is not on the same "ground" as an inmate or pirate. That example was to show that homosexual humans can, and do, procreate sometimes just like non-human homosexual animals.... which you dismissed by writing: " ....animals don't know restraint, which is why you see "gay animals" that also procreate.....when an animal feels the urge they satiate themselves..."

As if humans that prefer homosexual sex don't procreate sometimes and "satiate" themselves.

You were trying to draw a distinction in that regard, when in reality there is not.

Whether or not humans and animals "choose" homosexual behavior is a different subject. The point is that both humans and non humans display the preference for homosexual behavior. Suffice it to say that I think it's pretty doubtful that dragonflies and birds are operating in terms of deliberately "choosing" homosexual behavior, but they could be.

Are they REALLY just, "heterosexual with issues.", like Ted Haggard claims to be??? Perhaps.
But given the fact that there are a multitude of non-human animals with the same or similar "issues", it seem silly to pigeon-hole (HA!) homosexual behavior as "mental illness" or "sin" or whatever. The evidence strongly suggests that the cause(s) is probably physiological, rather than psychological.... not a "choice" that is made deliberately.

You're SO COOL, Coach!
I'd like to meet you in person so I can give you a big hug!

Not one of them sissy hugs, but a big old bear hug!
That would be so cool!

Prove it! With peer-reviewed scientific data.....

got a hint for you.....YOU CAN'T.....it doesn't exist......both sides have nothing but theory

and you are dead wrong....prove that you can show that Bowser likes boinking other male dogs and ain't just trying to get his rocks off....you can't....it's an animal....only HUMANS choose to WANT SAME SEX INTERACTIONS....animals just want to satiate

it's cool to disagree....just stop throwing the word "FACT" around without backing it up....when you get your degree you'll find that is how the scientific community works...peer-reviewed science

- - -

Dude.

What am I trying to prove? That animals engage in and sometimes seem to prefer homosexual behavior?

http://www.springerlink.com/content/p4021223452r617q/
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t18t2213605303j7/
http://www.springerlink.com/content/n16r82v562h34554/
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...ayanimal_2.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80628205430.htm
http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm
http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalog...isbn=0521864461
http://www.livescience.com/animals/061116_...al_animals.html
http://www.livescience.com/bestimg/index.p...;cat=gayanimals

Try this excerpt from Amazon. (might help explain a lack of peer-reviewed papers published on the subject)

"Bruce Bagemihl writes that Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity was a "labor of love." And indeed it must have been, since most scientists have thus far studiously avoided the topic of widespread homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom--sometimes in the face of undeniable evidence. Bagemihl begins with an overview of same-sex activity in animals, carefully defining courtship patterns, affectionate behaviors, sexual techniques, mating and pair-bonding, and same-sex parenting. He firmly dispels the prevailing notion that homosexuality is uniquely human and only occurs in "unnatural" circumstances. As far as the nature-versus-nurture argument--it's obviously both, he concludes. An overview of biologists' discomfort with their own observations of animal homosexuality over 200 years would be truly hilarious if it didn't reflect a tendency of humans (and only humans) to respond with aggression and hostility to same-sex behavior in our own species. In fact, Bagemihl reports, scientists have sometimes been afraid to report their observations for fear of recrimination from a hidebound (and homophobic) academia. Scientists' use of anthropomorphizing vocabulary such as insulting, unfortunate, and inappropriate to describe same-sex matings shows a decided lack of objectivity on the part of naturalists."

There is overwhelming evidence that non-human animals engage in, and yes, sometimes prefer homosexual relationships.
It's not a matter of scientific debate. The peer-reviewed papers - if any - probably address the WHY , not the.... DO THEY.
I'm not arguing about the WHY.... I don't know why.
The causes of the behavior have nothing to do with what I've been saying or the fact that animals ENGAGE in the behavior.
Whether or not the animals "like it better", or are just "getting their rocks off" is beside the point.

I'm not personally speaking in terms of "Gay" or "Lesbian" animals.... I'm speaking in terms of homosexuality and homosexual behavior.

But while we're on the subject of presenting evidence, perhaps you can present some for this gem of yours:
"...it's an animal....only HUMANS choose to WANT SAME SEX INTERACTIONS....animals just want to satiate"

Good Work!!!

Your "evidence" (which none are peer-reviewed studies) generally backs my theory that animals are simply looking to satiate....they have no preference per say, other than getting their rocks off....quote from your second to last link clearly says bisexual.....all that said, none of this is evidence...it is not FACT....they are opinions of people that you believe in....that is all and we could all spend hours posting the same type of stuff....until you have confirmed, peer-reviewed trials to post, do yourself and us a favor and shut up for awhile

I almost can't believe I'm replying to this subject, but here goes.

Forget the evidence. There's a lot on both sides. Here's what clinches it for me: I am not gay. Take away women and I still wouldn't hump or want to hump the nearest thing. Plenty of military experience to back my opinion on this. I was born with a natural, unavoidable, persistent, overpowering attraction to the opposite sex.

I never had a choice in the matter.

For that reason and that reason only, I believe that gay people, for the most part, are not gay by choice. There are, I am sure, exceptions.

As for those heterosexuals who insist that all gays make a choice to be gay, I assume that they began being equally attracted to males and females. They must have made their own choice to be heterosexual somewhere along the way. However, every time I suggest this, they throw up their hands and say, "Oh no! Not me! I was born liking girls!

How can we compare us to the animals as proof of human nature?
Just doesn't make sense. Not just the humping of legs, either. We are not the same as animals. Sure there are similarities, but to base right and wrong by the behavior of animals is really reaching.
Let me first get something straight. I am not called to be God's police. I am not the sin monitor. Just because I believe something to be right or wrong because it is biblical, does not mean I need to tell someone they are "being bad". My job as a Christian is to tell people how they can be saved from the penalty of their sins. For me to say that my sin is not as bad as your sin (in God's eyes, not man's) would be a lie.

That being said - if we are to base the morality of human behavior on the common actions of animals, why is it not legal, moral, or even socially acceptable for a human mother to eat her young?
Animals do it all the time. There are probably more examples of that than animals displaying homosexual tendancies.
Oh, you are going to say that doesn't count because it just isn't the same thing.
Yeah I know it isn't the same thing. Not to humans, but it is something that happens commonly in the animal world. To an animal that eats her young, it is perfectly natural, and, they ARE just dumb animals, right?

I'd like a nice fresh placenta to go and a six pack of earth worms.
I'm on vacation this week, so I'll hold onto my other thoughts.

I have a heck of a time posting my thoughts in the proper thread, so.... This is going to be the place I hang out for awhile. Saying what I think concerning my views on religion.

The following is one of my favorite quotes and something I continue to ponder. Any takers?

"A God who could make good children as easily as bad, yet preferred to make bad ones; who could have made every one of them happy, yet never made a single happy one; who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short; who gave his angels eternal happiness unearned, yet required his other children to earn it; who gave his angels painless lives, yet cursed his other children with biting miseries and maladies of mind and body; who mouths justice, and invented hell—mouths mercy, and invented hell—mouths Golden Rules and forgiveness multiplied by seventy times seven, and invented hell; who mouths morals to other people, and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man's acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself; and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites his poor abused slave to worship him!"
—Mark Twain, The Mysterious Stranger, 1916

From "The Christian World of C. S. Lewis," by Clyde Kilby:

The case for disbelief in God because of pain and evil in the world was so succinctly put by the late professor C. E. M. Joad of the University of London that I should like to use it in beginning this chapter. "For many years," said Dr. Joad, "the problem of pain and evil seemed to me to offer an insuperable objection to Christianity. Either God could abolish them but did not, in which case, since He deliverately tolerated the presence in the universe of a state of affairs which was bad, I did not see how He could be good; or He wanted to abolish them but could not, in which case I did not see how He could be all-powerful." It is a problem which has at some time disturbed every thoughtful person.

So you're in good company, TR, being a thoughtful person. Twain simply hasn't thought it through. If God were to create a world in which His creations were automatically happy, He would either have to make them automatically immune to bad choices (no free will) or create a world in which all of their choices led to happiness (not logically possible even for an omnipotent being, because my wishes would sooner or later trample on yours). In the first case, what is there to love in little clay men who only do as you ask them? How can we love something with no free will? I can 'love' my car, but it doesn't come close to the way I can love my children, or even a dog. In the second, if there is only one bowl of ice cream, and TR and SM both want it, either someone must lose (pain) or God must artificially create a very unsatisfying short-cut (deus ex machina).

As for the suffering of innocents, Christianity provides for this, as well. God does allow evil. If He did not, He would not be able to allow us to live. To put it another way, where would He draw the line? Murder? Theft? Mean-spirited thoughts? Free will would be out the window. I believe the mistake many (including myself not so long ago) make is in ascribing too much importance to the life we have here on this earth. God is not concerned with our happiness so much as with our growth. When we stand before Him, whether as infants who never made it past our first year, or old men who lived, loved and sinned heartily, He will take into account EVERYTHING. We will stand naked before Him and be seen more clearly than we think possible. Those of us born with horrible dispositions into sick, abusive families may be judged less harshly than those of us born with affable natures and Ozzie/Harriet parents. As Lewis puts it in Mere Christianity, "There will be surprises."

Moreover, God allows pain in order to corner us into a decision for or against Him. I hold that there comes a time in every man's life when he is brought to his knees and forced to turn toward or away from God. It's never too late to choose Him, but it's difficult to be concerned with the prospect of eternity or the subject of humility when all is wonderful.

I challenge you to pick up a copy of Mere Christianity and give it a go. Either way, thanks for the exercise.

"Every one says forgiveness is a lovely idea, until they have something to forgive ... And then, to mention the subject at all is to be greeted with howls of anger."

Now that I come to think of it, I have not exactly got a feeling of fondness or affection for myself, and I do not even always enjoy my own society. So apparently 'Love your neighbor' does not mean 'feel fond of him' or 'find him attractive'. I ought to have seen that before, because, of course, you cannot feel fond of a person by trying. Do I think well of myself, think myself a nice chap? Well, I am afraid I sometimes do (and those are, no doubt, my worst moments) but that is not why I love myself. In fact it is the other way round: my self-love makes me think myself nice, but thinking myself nice is not why I love myself. So loving my enemies does not apparently mean thinking them nice either. That is an enormous relief. For a good many people imagine that forgiving your enemies means making out that they are really not such bad fellows after all, when it is quite plain that they are. Go a step further. In my most clear-sighted moments not only do I not think myself a nice man, but I know that I am a very nasty one. I can look at some of the things I have done with horror and loathing. So apparently I am allowed to loathe and hate some of the things my enemies do. Now that I come to think of it, I remember Christian teachers telling me long ago that I must hate bad man's actions, but not hate the bad man: or, as they would say, hate the sin but not the sinner. ...

- C.S. Lewis From "Mere Christianity" Book 3 Chapter 7

And????????? Come on! What are your thoughts on that?!!!!

Absolutely!
How tough is it to love someone that hates you? Or to forgive someone that murdered a family member?
I don't know of anyone that personally hates me, but plenty don't like me. It's tough for me to love them. It sure is a good thing God can forgive me for that, that He can love me in spite of never being able to measure up to what His guidelines are. If someone hurt my wife or kids, I would probably go after them. Maybe in time I could bring myself to forgive them, but it would be tough. It sure is comforting to know that even though I am imperfect, I am still accepted by God.

And here are the 1 trillion dollar question(s) (adjusted for inflation):

Why must I believe in a Christian GOD in order to accept this notion? If it's a strict accountability issue, why can't I be accountable to something else? What if the golden calf followers accepted all of the tenents of the Juedo-Christian religion, yet the only difference was that they worshipped a golden calf?

The beautiful (and horrifying) thing about it is, you have the choice whether or not to believe. You don't HAVE to believe anything. The truth is independant of our beliefs. God doesn't exist BECAUSE we believe in Him. If no one believed, He would still be here.
On the flip side, if there was no God, He wouldn't be manufactured from our beliefs.
You can follow every rule in the bible to the letter except for what Jesus said was the most important one: (Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.) and still not be a Christian. That may make you a good person, but it doesn't make you a child of God. The rules and accountability are not the meat of Christianity. That is one of the most common misconceptions I have seen.

One thing I have learned through studying the Bible is to include passages before and after the "quoted" passage. That allows me to be able to read it in context. What you have quoted or selected is Lewis' answer to the question he asks of "Well, how exactly do I love myself?" You also omitted part of the quote at the very beginnig of your post. With your ellipsis you passed over "as we had during the war." So, that entire portion of the chapter actually said:

"I said in a previous chapter that chastity was the most unpopular of the Christian virtues. But I am not sure I was right. I believe there is one even more unpopular. It is laid down in the Christian rule, 'Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.' Because in Christian morals 'thy neighbor' includes 'thy enemy', and so we come up against this terrible duty of forgiving our enemies.

Every one says forgiveness is a lovely idea, until they have something to forgive, as we had during the war. And then, to mention the subject at all is to be greeted with howls of anger. It is not that people think this too high and difficult a virtue: it is that they think it hateful and contemptible. 'That sort of talk makes them sick,' they say. And half of you already want to ask me, 'I wonder how you'd feel about forgiving the Gestapo if you were a Pole or a Jew?'

So do I. I wonder very much. Just as when Christianity tells me that I must not deny my religion even to save myself from death by torture, I wonder very much what I should do when it came to the point. I am not trying to tell you in this book what I could do — I can do precious little — I am telling you Christianity is. I did not invent it. And there, right in the middle of it, I find 'Forgive us our sins as we forgive those that sin against us.' There is no slightest suggestion that we are offered forgiveness on any other terms. It is made perfectly clear that if we do not forgive we shall not be forgiven. There are no two ways about it. What are we to do?

It is going to be hard enough, anyway, but I think there are two things we can do to make it easier. When you start mathematics you do not begin with the calculus; you begin with simple addition. In the same way, if we really want (but all depends on really wanting) to learn how to forgive, perhaps we had better start with something easier than the Gestapo. One might start with forgiving one's husband or wife, or parents or children, or the nearest N.C.O, for something they have done or said in the last week. That will probably keep us busy for the moment. And secondly, we might try to understand exactly what loving your neighbor as yourself means. I have to love him as I love myself. Well, how exactly do I love myself?" (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/questionofgod/ownwords/mere2.html)

That is an interesting thought...forgiving the Gestapo if you were a Pole or Jew. I suggest you ask Ronald Cotton how he was able to forgive Jennifer Thompson-Cannino. She studied his face as he raped her over and over. She memorized it so that she would be able to idenitify him if she had to. Ronald Cotton was caught and she identified him as the man who raped her. He served 10.5 years before DNA evidence released him from prison. Somehow he forgave her though. They even became the best of friends. They wrote a book together and go on speaking tours. Her real rapist was caught tried and convicted.

Matthew 6:12
Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.

In other words, forgive me Lord for my sins as I have forgiven those who have sinned against me. I guess Ronald was able to forgive because he had been forgiven.

I'm confused. I've read and studied Mere Christianity 8 times through, so I understand Lewis' point. Is Frosty suggesting that TR omitted something in the passage to change Lewis' intended meaning? Is TR trying to make it look as though forgiveness isn't really necessary?

Frosty?

TR?

I would agree that a truth is independent of belief. A truth requires sufficient evidence in order to be classified as fact (something that can be tested and verified). With that being stated, how can one assert that GOD exists without the belief (faith)?

What assumptions are you using to jump from a state of belief to a state of fact?

I cut the maority of that last bit out - Let me say it another way. Whether or not I can PROOVE the existence of God does not affect His existence. His existence is independant of belief but also proof.
There are probably planets on solar systems in galaxies that we don't even know about because with our technology we cannot see that far. Yet, we cannot proove it. How can this paradox exist?

Please tell me that you seriously don't confuse proof with truth, or that you subscribe to subjective truth.
There is no point even discussing this further if you do.

I was just merely stating that in order to see or interpret the intended meaning of a passage, we need to view it in the entire context in which it was delivered. Only then can we have a better understanding of what is really being said.

Are you stating GOD exists?

It seems to me that taking things in or out of "context" has become a convenient method of disagreeing with an opinion in which one does not concur. I purposely omitted the context of this passage because "I" believe a statement should stand on it's own merit. We all would be better off if we did not feel the need to somehow qualify everything we said. In real life, I have become a man of few words preferring to simply let my 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and my 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one. - Matthew 5:37

You may start screaming "out of context" now.

You're smarter than that. Some thoughts need more than a sentence to convey their true meaning. For instance, take the two following passages. Leaving a sentence or two out can change the entire meaning:

1. Here at QSSN we have an endearing term for those who have put in their time, faced their dragons, and do a great deal to help others avoid taking that first dip. We call them "dipshits." TR is a dipshit.
2. TR is a dipshit.

Oh well. I yam what I yam. I prefer to have people make decisions on first impressions. Anyone worth knowing is worth exploring. I prefer to have people steer clear of me. Those who come back despite first impressions are the ones that have my attention. Word play. Is that what life's about?

That's the reason I instruct those who are in a position of power or influence to be careful what they say. In a way, it becomes an "art form." Thinking before you speak. Crafting a sentence or a thought so that it cannot be misconstrued. That is what I'm talking about.

How did we get on this subject anyway? I'm just here to tell you what I think. I didn't know I had to actually support my thoughts with proof, truth and undisputed equations of fact.

However (comma) I do appreciate the mental exercise.

I am screaming that He exists. My belief does not make it truth, just as your disbelief doesnt make it false.

We are all just saying what we think. It became a theological debate.
I am steering clear of the whole prooving God exists deal, it cannot be done. Just as the opposite cannot be done.

I agree. That is why the written word is so hard. You cannot convey emotion in the written word while you are writing it. Emotion comes from the way that the written word is read, just as interpretation does. Perception is in the eye of the perceiver.

Rick told me to tell you, good response! He's out of the office this morning aand I'm reading this to him over the cell phone while he's on the road.