|
Post by moritz on Nov 8, 2008 3:20:53 GMT -8
Marcus, your reply is really fascinating. I'm very unfamiliar with this line of thinking. It stands in conflict not only with what I believe is good and right today (as an atheist/ agnostic), but also with everything I was taught as a Christian. Since we have no common value basis, it is futile to discuss stem cell research together. I normally would say we have to agree to disagree here (about virtually everything). But as a matter of fact the terrible immorality of your viewpoint and the fatal consequences of it are really hard to swallow. Here we have another example of how Christianity is dangerous and the consequences real (in contrast to hypothetical consequences like hell). Agreeing to disagree is not enough. It must be made sure that your world view will never establish itself in legislation. No matter what (ends justifying means here ) PS: I'm still not convinced that the way you interpret God's will and instructions is accurate. But the fact that one can distill SUCH a world view out of the Bible is one more argument why this book is twisted. PPS: And I'm not sure you answered my direct questions (maybe you did and it got lost along the way).
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 8, 2008 11:31:21 GMT -8
Some responses to Mo, then to Marcus: mo wrote: As judged by what standard? And I'm not exactly sure which parts of what Marcus said were most troubling to you. mo wrote: Don't think you need to worry too much about that, buddy. People who say these kinds of things are more likely to be beaten, stoned, and imprisoned than voted into office. mo wrote: I know you're joking to some degree here, but I don't think you could have emphasized Marcus' thesis better- especially what he's saying about the way the world works vs. the way the kingdom of God works. mo wrote: Christianity and the Bible are dangerous???!!! And of course good, solid, real things are never dangerous, right? You know, like hammers, stones, truth, love, etc... And good, true, noble things are the least likely to be twisted, right? Come on Mo. The best things are the most easily corrupted.* *This isn't a comment on Marcus' perspective, I'm just attacking the logic that a belief system can be judged on how easy it is to pervert it. On to Marcus: Hmmm, well, I agree with more that you wrote in this last segment. Especially about how in the kingdom means trump outcomes. Still, I think part of the faith is invested in eventual outcomes. God will right the world. And that leads to the main point of possible disagreement with you here. In my view, God is saving the world and we are agents of that mission. We are to be "saving the world", we just need to remind ourselves constantly that the way God will do that through us is in living out the means He gave us and not dictating to Him or others how those outcomes need to look from our perspective. Do we actually agree on this? I could say more, but gotta go. Good stuff.
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Nov 8, 2008 12:10:20 GMT -8
Jesus and his disciples were in the garden praying. It was late, the boys were sleepy, and Jesus soon found himself alone in prayer. Wake up, boys. Please pray with me. They fall right back asleep. Later the soldiers come. This wakes them up. Peter swings a dagger because Jesus is innocent and nobody is going to kill an innocent buddy of Peter's. Peter nabs an ear. Jesus isn't impressed, so he puts the ear back on and scolds Peter. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
My dad doesn't like non-violence as a Christian virtue. When I talk about the Garden, Dad typically argues that Peter's actions were not wrong because they were violent, but because Peter was trying to step in the way of God's will. That theory would hold water if Jesus hadn't come right out and said He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.
Peter thought it would be moral to save Jesus' life and extend his ministry. The longer Jesus lived, the more people would be saved and healed. Thousands, tens of thousands even. So Peter employed whatever means were necessary to achieve the end he wanted. And he was rebuked for it.
Moritz, you are right - you never want someone like me legislating anything. I certainly wouldn't cultivate a successful country. Since Christian virtues are about unconditional love, generosity, selflessness, peace, and the like, you probably don't want me in charge of protecting our borders, defending the "American way of life", protecting freedom, or ensuring financial prosperity, since those aren't things Christians believe in.
I think people have a difficult time with the suffering piece more than anything. Let me try and clear that up. Knowing that someone, friend or foe, is suffering, be it from disease, loneliness, depression, starvation, or persecution, a Christian can't possibly stand idly by. We must show them love, and in doing so, we can hope that their needs are met as a result, i.e., that they are fed, comforted, treated, or delivered from persecution. The story of the Good Samaritan is perfect here. But what happens if the victim ends up dying in the story (we never find out)? Were the Samaritan's deeds done in vain? Did he fail? Of course not, because righteousness is found in the motives and the methods, not in the results.
Moritz, I'm not surprised that you disagree with me. But totally immoral? Interact with any of my examples and tell me why.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Nov 8, 2008 22:03:55 GMT -8
Marcus, Kudos, I think you have a sermon there. I agree with about 90% of what you said in post (the lengthy one). Jesus said to Judas: John 12:7 "Let her alone; she has kept this for the day of My burial. For the poor you have with you always, but Me you do not have always." NKJV
and in contrast, he said to the rich young ruler: Mark 10:21 21 Then Jesus, looking at him, loved him, and said to him, "One thing you lack: Go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross, and follow Me." NKJV ...you're right, it's not our role to rid the world of suffering and poverty, but to be faithful and obedient to God and leave the results to Him. It's interesting to not that at the end of his life, almost all of of Paul's friends and converts had deserted him (2Tim 4:16) and yet he said: 2 Tim 4:17 17 But the Lord stood with me and strengthened me, so that the message might be preached fully through me, and that all the Gentiles might hear. NKJV
He didn't say that the Gentiles would be converted, only that they'd "hear" the gospel through him. So I'd agree that ours is not to be successful, but only faithful. I'm not sure what one would find "terribly immoral" about that. However, one point of disagreement I would have with what you said is in regards to mourning and disappointment when people suffer and die. Jesus wept when His friend Lazarus died, even though he knew he was going to bring him back to life in the next 30 seconds. Paul indicated that to have Epaphroditus die would bring him "sorrow upon sorrow" and that God was merciful to him (Paul) for sparing him (Phil 2:27). I think suffering and death is an ugly and disgusting result of the fall, not God's intention even if He is able to redeem it, and it is to be mourned and despaired as a travesty of life even though we know it's not the final end (thanks be to Jesus). Anyway, in general, I like your line of thinking on this.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 8, 2008 22:22:43 GMT -8
;D
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Nov 9, 2008 0:04:27 GMT -8
Josh, go ahead and close this thread now. Moritz just called me on the phone, assured me that he is in total agreement with my stance, converted to Christianity, and promised to sell all he has and give it to Aletheia.
Oh, and on another totally unrelated note, someone random atheist just hacked into Moritz's account and may try to post using his name. So, ignore any future posts from the impostor.
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Nov 9, 2008 7:19:18 GMT -8
Josh, go ahead and close this thread now. Moritz just called me on the phone, assured me that he is in total agreement with my stance, converted to Christianity, and promised to sell all he has and give it to Aletheia. Oh, and on another totally unrelated note, someone random atheist just hacked into Moritz's account and may try to post using his name. So, ignore any future posts from the impostor. halelu-Jáh.
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Nov 9, 2008 7:33:44 GMT -8
Some responses to Mo, then to Marcus: mo wrote: As judged by what standard? Islam. And I'm not exactly sure which parts of what Marcus said were most troubling to you. Me neither. Don't think you need to worry too much about that, buddy. People who say these kinds of things are more likely to be beaten, stoned, and imprisoned than voted into office. Good for him then. "blessed are those who are persecuted." I know you're joking to some degree here, but I don't think you could have emphasized Marcus' thesis better- especially what he's saying about the way the world works vs. the way the kingdom of God works. right. Christianity and the Bible are dangerous???!!! Yes. The best things are the most easily corrupted.* You refer to blind ideology as "the best things"?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 9, 2008 8:40:25 GMT -8
How can you take your experience of three Christians and a fallibillist (your preferred term for yourself) discussing and debating the intricacies of the Sermon on the Mount, etc.. as an example of adherence to "blind ideology"? Rather, isn't it an example of seeking truth and understanding?
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Nov 11, 2008 8:07:42 GMT -8
How can you take your experience of three Christians and a fallibillist (your preferred term for yourself) discussing and debating the intricacies of the Sermon on the Mount, etc.. as an example of adherence to "blind ideology"? Rather, isn't it an example of seeking truth and understanding? As if my experience of Christians and Christianity was limited to the people posting on this thread.... Don't make me laugh! Now to the last part of your question: To be quite frankly, I don't get the impression that Marcus is seeking the truth. The way he speaks sounds more like he believes to know the truth. Needless to repeat what I think of that
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Nov 11, 2008 8:08:39 GMT -8
Moritz, I'm not surprised that you disagree with me. But totally immoral? Interact with any of my examples and tell me why. What for?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 13, 2008 18:26:57 GMT -8
Somehow I feel like we got on separate tracks here and are talking past each other big time. Shall we get back to the meat of it or move on to another topic?
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Nov 15, 2008 2:38:55 GMT -8
Somehow I feel like we got on separate tracks here and are talking past each other big time. Shall we get back to the meat of it or move on to another topic? Back to the meat. Josh, I have to say that I'm a bit alienated by the variety of Christian exegeses again. We've talked about this before. The opinions of the people posting in this thread got immingled in my head and I'm not sure who stands where now. So here are a couple of thoughts. These might miss the point somewhat and if they do, please let me know. Marcus said: Christianity is not concerned with saving lives I said: Here we have another example of how Christianity is dangerous and the consequences real and you (Josh) replied: Christianity and the Bible are dangerous???!!! So here's what I think. Every ideology is potentially dangerous. But one main difference between political ideology and religious ideology such as Christianity or Islam is the afterlife focus of religion. Why this is dangerous should be easy to understand if you watch it through my eyes. If I'm right and there is no afterlife, then this life is all we got. Killing someone becomes way more weighty*. People who don't believe in an afterlife are likely to have a higher appreciation of life than religious people because of that. After all Mohamed Atta, one of the WTC-terrorists of 9/11, perhaps shared Marcus view. He focused on the afterlife. He didn't care for wordly rules, he only cared about God's will and must have thought to act according to God's will.* Now, I don't have a problem with a religious nutter killing himself. It's his privilege to throw his life away if he pleases. But Atta not only killed himself, but thousands of others who did not give their approval. While Marcus trusts that God took care of those victims, and that hence we should rather be happy for them, I think this is just terrible. I see no big difference between Marcus beliefs and Atta's. The only difference is (I hope), that for the time being Marcus doesn't think the killing of someone would be the execution of God's will. But there are enough Christians who have thought that and believe it to the present day (after all the Bible offers enough reasons to justify killing in the nameof the LORD). That's point one. Point two: The belief that Marcus extracted from the sermon on the mount is that those who suffer and mourn are blessed and that hence we shouldn't worry about them. Or in his own words: "Why is it pointless to go around trying to protect and defend the innocent, the sufferers, and the martyrs? Because God already has their backs:" If you continue this thought until it's logical conclusion you'll get right here: The highest act of brotherly love must be to torture a believer. To make sure he suffers as much as possible and gets a slow and miserable death***. God will have his back and bless him. And if you're lucky God will forgive you that you forced him to bless those victims in accordance with his own promise. If you're not so lucky, he'll condemn you but then at least you can be happy to know that you sacrificed yourself for the benefit of your neighbours soul's. Selfsacrifice - one of the (if not THE) highest moral goods of Christianity! Who knows. Perhaps some of the many Christian Nazis executing in the concentration camps consoled their guilty consciences with exactly this rationality. "Hey, it's not that bad after all. They'll be just fine". Can you imagine to meet an Ausschwitz headman in heaven? Is there any more question why Christianity is dangerous and this particular line of thinking immoral? This leads us directly to point three. Marcus said: Not because we're worried about the victims (we're not - they're just fine), but because we love and care for the soul of the evildoer. The conclusions from above combined with this statement present a tricky moral paradoxon to Christians. Why should you be worried about the evildoer if the evildoer in reality is a gooddoer? The stripline between good and evil blurrs. Alright, maybe the evildoer remains an evildoer because he doesn't do his actions in order to do good. But his action remains a good action. To hinder an abortion doctor from aborting is at the same time an act of Christian love for the wicked doctors soul, as well as an act against the unborn who could have it much better with the LORD. But the wicked doctors soul isn't lost even if he does the abortion. The Christ died for his sin. So the best option for the Christian according to Marcus logic the way i understood it would be: Let the doctor abort, be happy for the fetus who is with the LORD and then make sure the doctor opens his heart for Jesus afterwards. That would be the win-win situation for all. Do you think that makes sense, Josh****? That should be enough meat for now *killing someone is something definite for a nonbeliever. While for a believer killing is like kiling in a videogame: it's not really killing. **Otherwise he wouldn't have done what he did. This also refutes Marcus opinion that ends never justify means: If the fulfillment of God's will is the goal, all means MUST be justified. Think about it. God himself acted according to this axiom when he chose the most horried means (like genocide) to get his will. ***without letting the victim know why you do it. That would give the victim too much hope. In the worst case the victim would even joyfully agree. That would spoil the whole endeavor... **** I know I've adressed a lot of Marcus thoughts, but the entire post is only directed at you (Josh) because you seemed to be in agreement with much of what he said. And though I don't think I can sort things out with him, I sure want to get things straight with you.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 15, 2008 16:33:23 GMT -8
OK, first off, I was a bit confused as to which parts of what Marcus was saying were causing you to say that Christianity is confused and dangerous.
My response, "Christianity is dangerous???" was a sarcastic rhetorical question, because I do believe that there are elements of Christian faith that are "dangerous"-- but aparrently not the same things you are zeroing in on as dangerous.
The particular quote of Marcus's that you zeroed in on "Christianity is not concerned with saving lives" bothers me as well, and probably most Christians who read it. However, I understand Marcus to be using dramatic hyperbole to make the point that Christians don't hold "saving lives" or "preventing suffering" as the ultimately highest good. We might reply to Marcus (as some of us have done) that "preventing or alleviating suffering" is usually in line with persuing God's will, as evidenced by even Jesus' own life or his instructions to His church. He would say, well, duh, yeah, but you would have missed my point if I had softened it.
And the point is, again, that saving temporal lives is not the sine qua non of the Christian faith. And this, as you point out in your point one, is definitely a point of contention between a materialist viewpoint like your own and a viewpoint which keeps a heaven in mind.
I would add that, yes, belief in an afterlife can be "dangerous" but it's dangerous because the belief, like all true beliefs (my opinion), can go so wrong (killing others to enter into paradise) and it can go so right (sacrificing your life for someone else, or bearing your death with dignity because you know death isn't the end).
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 15, 2008 16:42:30 GMT -8
Be sure to read my thread immediately preceding this on page 3.
As to your point two, I would agree that such logic is faulty, dangerous, and abhorrent. The sermon on the mount blesses those who suffer, but doesn't say we shouldn't be concerned about them. Rather Jesus says we should aid those who suffer, etc.. However, and I think this is the major thrust of what Marcus was pursuing (he'll likely appear to correct or re-define), "saving lives" still isn't our bottom line. Loving is the bottom line always. Loving often means saving lives. But loving also often means helping people prepare to die, helping people die well, putting yourself in dangerous situations for greater goods, choosing a path that you know will lead to some suffering, etc..
So, I guess, applying this perspective, the ultimate tragedy of the concentration camps wasn't that "lives were lost" or that "people died" but that extreme evil was done.
I'll respond to your point 3 when I have some more time.
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Nov 16, 2008 15:10:19 GMT -8
So here's what I think. Every ideology is potentially dangerous. But one main difference between political ideology and religious ideology such as Christianity or Islam is the afterlife focus of religion. Why this is dangerous should be easy to understand if you watch it through my eyes. If I'm right and there is no afterlife, then this life is all we got. Killing someone becomes way more weighty*. People who don't believe in an afterlife are likely to have a higher appreciation of life than religious people because of that. After all Mohamed Atta, one of the WTC-terrorists of 9/11, perhaps shared Marcus view. He focused on the afterlife. He didn't care for wordly rules, he only cared about God's will and must have thought to act according to God's will.* Now, I don't have a problem with a religious nutter killing himself. It's his privilege to throw his life away if he pleases. But Atta not only killed himself, but thousands of others who did not give their approval. While Marcus trusts that God took care of those victims, and that hence we should rather be happy for them, I think this is just terrible. I see no big difference between Marcus beliefs and Atta's. The only difference is (I hope), that for the time being Marcus doesn't think the killing of someone would be the execution of God's will. But there are enough Christians who have thought that and believe it to the present day (after all the Bible offers enough reasons to justify killing in the nameof the LORD). That's point one. Moritz, this is manipulative garbage. From what I've read of your posts in the past, I'm a little surprised that you wrote this. You spend quite a bit of time pointing out people's logical fallacies, and are pretty sharp about keeping honest discussion, and yet you actually posted that paragraph. First, the point of my comments, above all, has been centered on one key principle that informs our understanding of the ethical implications of stem cell research. That principle, which I clearly stated, explained, and defended, is this: The ends never justify the means. But because I mentioned the afterlife, you decided that because I believe in the afterlife, that also trumps my entire thesis, so you wrote "Mohamed Atta, one of the WTC-terrorists of 9/11, perhaps shared Marcus view. He focused on the afterlife. He didn't care for wordly rules, he only cared about God's will and must have thought to act according to God's will." So, a terrorist who is willing to do horrible acts of immorality because he believes the ends justify the means "shared Marcus' view"? Really, you're trying to make that logical jump? You're the one defending that the ends do sometimes justify the means. That line of thinking can permit a terrorist to blow up a plane, or a country to drop an atomic bomb, because as long as more good than bad will come of it, it is justified. Because I believe in heaven, and because I won't compromise on the ends not justifying the means, I could NEVER do something immoral like that. Heaven makes you more moral, not less - the belief that consequences await actions and beliefs propels people to be more moral and righteous. The one point we agree on, I'm sure, is the danger of taking the idea of eternal consequences and perverting it - such as the terrorist who kills expecting a reward in heaven, or a Christian who drops a bomb expecting God to reward the "moral deed". Look, if you want to interact with my beliefs, please discuss some of the examples I've provided. Hiroshima, the Good Samaritan, the Garden of Gethsemane, abortion, stem cells. And really, do I need to come right out and reassure you that I want people to live, to avoid suffering, and to be peaceful? Okay, I do. Believing that God will reward those who suffer does not mean I want people to suffer. It means that when immoral acts occur, and victims endure the consequences and maintain their morality instead of lashing back or seeking vengeance (and therefore suffer), God will bless them for it. It means that a child who suffers and dies of cancer will find comfort in heaven beyond their imagination. It does not mean I want every child to get cancer. Our concern is not to save lives. Our concern is acting morally (as Jesus would). Lives are often saved as a result of that. But our calling is not to save everyone from death or suffering. Jesus has already saved us from that by his teaching, his, life, death and resurrection. If your goal is to save people and extend life, you're bound for frustration and disappointment, because life is just never long enough. But if your goal is to love and serve people regardless of outcome, you'll find peace and contentment. I've tried both, believe me. You know what people were surprised to find when they studied the life of Mother Theresa? She wasn't trying to save the lives of everyone in Calcutta. She knew that the way to minister to the dying was to show them love during the dying process. Many people whose focus was on preserving life, the "highest moral virtue," would have told her to travel the world and recruit medical specialists to prolong lives as much as possible. But when doctors actually showed up to her mission, she would teach them to put down their needles and medications and just hold and hug the dying. Doctors wanted someone with one month to live to somehow manage three or four months. Mother Theresa wanted to be sure that they were loved and comforted over their final month. She would hold people while they writhed in pain, and assured them that she loved them, that God loved them, and that they would soon find true rest in heaven. I share her ethic...and I'm not worried that my belief in heaven is going to pervert my mind enough to blow up a plane. You don't believe in the hope of the afterlife. I understand that. I also understand why you'd be frustrated and fed up with people using the Bible to justify killing in the name of the Lord. I am too. That's why I'm committed to teaching and practicing non-violence. That's why I'm committed to spreading the message about seeking righteous acts, never seeking righteous outcomes. And by the way, using the term Christian Nazi is a cheap shot. A Christian is not a title that one can randomly bestow upon themselves while doing whatever the hell they want to do. A Christian is a follower of Jesus. If someone kills out of racism and commits unspeakably moral acts, they are not a Christian, regardless of what they claim. And if you're against the Bible because people pervert it for their own evil agendas, then you shouldn't be a fan of affection, or friendship, or love, or prescription drugs, or having children, or a whole number of other things that people manipulate for selfish, evil purposes.
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Nov 17, 2008 0:33:34 GMT -8
Moritz, this is manipulative garbage. From what I've read of your posts in the past, I'm a little surprised that you wrote this. You spend quite a bit of time pointing out people's logical fallacies, and are pretty sharp about keeping honest discussion, and yet you actually posted that paragraph. First, the point of my comments, above all, has been centered on one key principle that informs our understanding of the ethical implications of stem cell research. That principle, which I clearly stated, explained, and defended, is this: The ends never justify the means. But because I mentioned the afterlife, you decided that because I believe in the afterlife, that also trumps my entire thesis, so you wrote "Mohamed Atta, one of the WTC-terrorists of 9/11, perhaps shared Marcus view. He focused on the afterlife. He didn't care for wordly rules, he only cared about God's will and must have thought to act according to God's will." So, a terrorist who is willing to do horrible acts of immorality because he believes the ends justify the means "shared Marcus' view"? Really, you're trying to make that logical jump? You're the one defending that the ends do sometimes justify the means. That line of thinking can permit a terrorist to blow up a plane, or a country to drop an atomic bomb, because as long as more good than bad will come of it, it is justified. Because I believe in heaven, and because I won't compromise on the ends not justifying the means, I could NEVER do something immoral like that. Heaven makes you more moral, not less - the belief that consequences await actions and beliefs propels people to be more moral and righteous. The one point we agree on, I'm sure, is the danger of taking the idea of eternal consequences and perverting it - such as the terrorist who kills expecting a reward in heaven, or a Christian who drops a bomb expecting God to reward the "moral deed". Look, if you want to interact with my beliefs, please discuss some of the examples I've provided. Hiroshima, the Good Samaritan, the Garden of Gethsemane, abortion, stem cells. And really, do I need to come right out and reassure you that I want people to live, to avoid suffering, and to be peaceful? Okay, I do. Believing that God will reward those who suffer does not mean I want people to suffer. It means that when immoral acts occur, and victims endure the consequences and maintain their morality instead of lashing back or seeking vengeance (and therefore suffer), God will bless them for it. It means that a child who suffers and dies of cancer will find comfort in heaven beyond their imagination. It does not mean I want every child to get cancer. Our concern is not to save lives. Our concern is acting morally (as Jesus would). Lives are often saved as a result of that. But our calling is not to save everyone from death or suffering. Jesus has already saved us from that by his teaching, his, life, death and resurrection. If your goal is to save people and extend life, you're bound for frustration and disappointment, because life is just never long enough. But if your goal is to love and serve people regardless of outcome, you'll find peace and contentment. I've tried both, believe me. You know what people were surprised to find when they studied the life of Mother Theresa? She wasn't trying to save the lives of everyone in Calcutta. She knew that the way to minister to the dying was to show them love during the dying process. Many people whose focus was on preserving life, the "highest moral virtue," would have told her to travel the world and recruit medical specialists to prolong lives as much as possible. But when doctors actually showed up to her mission, she would teach them to put down their needles and medications and just hold and hug the dying. Doctors wanted someone with one month to live to somehow manage three or four months. Mother Theresa wanted to be sure that they were loved and comforted over their final month. She would hold people while they writhed in pain, and assured them that she loved them, that God loved them, and that they would soon find true rest in heaven. I share her ethic...and I'm not worried that my belief in heaven is going to pervert my mind enough to blow up a plane. You don't believe in the hope of the afterlife. I understand that. I also understand why you'd be frustrated and fed up with people using the Bible to justify killing in the name of the Lord. I am too. That's why I'm committed to teaching and practicing non-violence. That's why I'm committed to spreading the message about seeking righteous acts, never seeking righteous outcomes. And by the way, using the term Christian Nazi is a cheap shot. A Christian is not a title that one can randomly bestow upon themselves while doing whatever the hell they want to do. A Christian is a follower of Jesus. If someone kills out of racism and commits unspeakably moral acts, they are not a Christian, regardless of what they claim. And if you're against the Bible because people pervert it for their own evil agendas, then you shouldn't be a fan of affection, or friendship, or love, or prescription drugs, or having children, or a whole number of other things that people manipulate for selfish, evil purposes. take a chance, take a chance, take a take a chance chance... (don't know why I have this in my ear everytime I browse this board ;D) Marcus, First off: Relax. I think you're a cool guy. You're funny and witty. And I like funny and witty people. So I'm sorry my last post annoyed you. On the other hand I don't feel like your last post exposed my arguments as "manipulative garbage". On the contrary, I got the impression, that we are talking past each other in many ways. Shall we try to get things straight? I'll respond in particular in a separated post. Just wanted to send this little foreword your way so we can make sure that the debate won't heat up unnecessarily.
|
|