Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Church, State, and 501c3Follow

#1 Oct 23 2014 at 5:30 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Recently the office of the mayor of Houston, who has been busy filling her time with social agendas like ending bathroom gender discrimination and making it easier for bicyclist to annoy drivers, has issued subpoenae to churches demanding that they turn over copies of their sermons and their communications having anything to do with homosexuality and gender identity...
Quote:

Request No. 12: All speeches, presentations, or sermons related to HERO, the Petition, Mayor Annise Parker, homosexuals, or gender identity prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession.

Defendants hereby revise Request No. 12 as follows: All speeches or presentations related to HERO or the Petition prepared by, delivered by, revised by, or approved by you or in your possession.


In my view, this is an exploitation of a churches 501c3 status (which essentially BINDS church and state).
The reason, I guess, that she can get away with this is because a number of her policies are heavily bent upon expanding rights for gay people.. therefore ipso facto any sermon having to do with homosexuality or for that matter, any Bible study(or even reading I guess!) of Romans 1:25-26, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:8-10 all qualify as political speech due to the fact that so much of her policy has to do with homosexuality. It's the tail wagging the dog.
In addition to that the 501c3 wording seems to ONLY prohibit influencing people for or against a particular candidate and NOT having to do with political activity..
http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Charitable-Organizations/The-Restriction-of-Political-Campaign-Intervention-by-Section-501%28c%29%283%29-Tax-Exempt-Organizations

I am wondering what ya'lls view is on this type of politicking.

It seems to be a clash of ethics, free-speech, and religious freedom. It's certainly no secret that the 'liberal' politician is an openly staunch enemy of religious freedom.. but this blatant attack on the Christian church in particular seems to set a precedent that essentially would pave the way for complete dominance over the ability to simply teach the Bible.
Now if a church is foolishly trying to teach out of Old Testament Mosaic Law directed at the Israelites and was encouraging people to go out and attack gay people.. then yes indeed.. that would be a problem and those hate filled false teachers should be silenced because it's simply wrong, dangerous, hateful, and (IMO) anti-Christ.. but in this case it makes the very words of the Bible, written 2000 years ago retroactive political speech.. which: if taken to it's logical conclusion would outlaw the Christian religion.. which by it's very nature is an affront to religions such as Islam.. Islam, where to deny that the prophet Mohamed is Allah's true prophet is close to being considered hate-speech these days...

My prediction is that soon any actual Bible believing churches will be relegated to peoples basements... which, I'm sure, for many here would be a great victory against these deluded believers in ancient fairy tales.. (on that note I wonder how many mosques and synagogues were subpenaed)

By the way: as a result of this churches around the planet are flooding the offices of Ms. Mx.Parker with sermons and bibles by the thousandsSmiley: laugh
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#2 Oct 23 2014 at 5:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
We could tax the church. That's probably a good solution.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#3 Oct 23 2014 at 5:41 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
We could tax the church. That's probably a good solution.


One could blame the churches for allowing themselves to become so dependent on the government teat.. rendering unto Caesar and all that..
but separation of Church and State I once thought (prior to my Jesus-freakery) was designed to keep the Churches grubby paws off of laws.. (which is a big reason that I think that politicians against the right for gay people to marry are hypocritical and naive) but clearly it's a two-way street.. to keep the government from interfering with religious practices.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#4 Oct 23 2014 at 5:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Quote:
The reason, I guess, that she can get away with this


She did not, in fact, get away with it. Among others, the ACLU filed suit to stop her, and she backed off, admitting that the subpoenas were overly broad.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#5 Oct 23 2014 at 6:07 PM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Samira wrote:
Quote:
The reason, I guess, that she can get away with this


She did not, in fact, get away with it. Among others, the ACLU filed suit to stop her, and she backed off, admitting that the subpoenas were overly broad.



[Steve Urkel] Did I do that? [/Steve Urkel]
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#6 Oct 23 2014 at 6:23 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
therefore ipso facto any sermon having to do with homosexuality or for that matter, any Bible study(or even reading I guess!) of Romans 1:25-26, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:8-10 all qualify as political speech due to the fact that so much of her policy has to do with homosexuality.
So how about 1 Peter 2:18, Exodus 21:7, and 1 Timothy 2:12? Or is this going to be more of a "freedom of the parts of religion I agree with and let's ignore the parts I don't" type of freedom discussions?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#7 Oct 23 2014 at 6:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Samira wrote:
Quote:
The reason, I guess, that she can get away with this
She did not, in fact, get away with it. Among others, the ACLU filed suit to stop her, and she backed off, admitting that the subpoenas were overly broad.

[Steve Urkel] Did I do that? [/Steve Urkel]


I was thinking more
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#8 Oct 23 2014 at 7:38 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Interesting. I thought it was voter suppression to not allow politics to be preached from the pulpit. On election day even!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#9 Oct 23 2014 at 10:38 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
gbaji wrote:
Interesting. I thought it was voter suppression to not allow politics to be preached from the pulpit. On election day even!


Mostly this is determined by how religious the pundit is.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#10 Oct 24 2014 at 6:42 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Quote:
It's certainly no secret that the 'liberal' politician is an openly staunch enemy of religious freedom..
It's not reality nor a fact. It's an opinion, and a pretty short-sighted one at that. Religious freedom /= Religious privilege.

I stopped reading your self-righteous little gotcha post when I came to this part.

Why you so pissy these days?

edit: Smiley: mad No pissy 4JOO!

Edited, Oct 24th 2014 2:43pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#11 Oct 24 2014 at 7:33 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:
therefore ipso facto any sermon having to do with homosexuality or for that matter, any Bible study(or even reading I guess!) of Romans 1:25-26, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:8-10 all qualify as political speech due to the fact that so much of her policy has to do with homosexuality.
So how about 1 Peter 2:18, Exodus 21:7, and 1 Timothy 2:12? Or is this going to be more of a "freedom of the parts of religion I agree with and let's ignore the parts I don't" type of freedom discussions?


Nice.
Well the point of those version were directly relating to homosexuality..and I didn't include OT because those laws were not for Christians but for a very specific people during a very specific time for a very specific reason.. but I'll bite.

1 Peter 2:18
Household slaves, submit with all fear to your masters, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.

When Christ returned, His disciples were expecting Him to violently overthrow the Romans and set up an earthly kingdom. Clearly this was not the purpose of why Christ came (at that time). He came to die. We are taught that our kingdom (at this time) is to be a spiritual kingdom. Our war is not against flesh and blood but it is against spiritual forces that seek to keep people from salvation.
That is why these verses do not say "Slaves.. rebel and overthrown your masters, take vengeance on them and do unto them like they did unto you!"
That would server no purpose. It would only serve the desires of the flesh for revenge.
Also: Unless you are wholly ignorant of this time period.. slavery was as normal and as common and accepted as ..well wage-slavery is today. Entire generations for hundreds of years were slaves. If suddenly.. by some miraculous occurrence.. all of the Christian slaves in the Roman Empire were free either by rebellion or escape.. What exactly do you think they would have been able to do? Where do you think they would have been able to go?
I suppose many people look at this verse and claim that this supports slavery become it doesn't condemn it outright.. No. These were people living in the Roman Empire. They would have no more been able to do anything about slavery than they would be able to overthrow the Caesars. There would be no point in condemning the evil that is slavery because it is a given that human beings are cruel by nature (just like the rest of nature).
There is also evidence that slaves converted their masters.. as well as prisoners converting their jailors. Paul himself seems to have converted at least a few of his Roman captors.. so being that the prime purpose of a Christian on earth is to bring as many people out of the darkness and into the Light as possible.. this scripture makes perfect sense.

Exodus 21:7
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she is not to leave as the male slaves do.

So here we have slavery again. If you look at the passages before and after this you will see that this Law is in place to protect the female.
The special treatment given to female slaves was to ensure that they would not become homeless, destitute, and with no support.
Why is a man allowed to sell his daughter in the first place? What must be kept in mind is that this is an entirely closed exclusive community. The era that they were living in meant that your neighboring tribe was usually trying to kill you (especially if you're a Jew).. Therefore there really weren't many options to ensure that your children were fed, clothed, and sheltered. In reality this is more like indentured servitude. People were still expected not to act like stereo-typical Southern plantation owners. If a man found himself unable to feed his children.. then they are "sold as slaves" that is to say that they are provided with a roof over their heads.. and going by the next few passages there you will see that the rights of these woman were ensured that they could not be thrown out on the street.. which really meant to die in the wilderness or live as a prostitute.
Why does God seem to allow slavery in the first place? Hebrews selling themselves into indentured servitude is one thing... The Law was that after 7 years they were free of their servitude.. Not so with non-Hebrew slaves.. Why is this? Isn't God a God of Love? Why does God seem to love slavery?
Consider this.. You are living in a semi-nomadic Bronze Age tribe.. Your neighboring tribes are constantly trying to kill you and rape your women and steal your livestock and burn your homes to the ground... So they attack you.. You defeat them.. You have a bunch of POWs.. What is the ethical thing to do with these POWs? Options are.. slaughter them.. let them go.. enslave them. You can't let them go. If you let them go they will likely not be grateful and still try to kill you later on.. slaughtering them... well.. no. Enslaving them really seems to be the best thing to do in this situation. I am not justifying slavery because I cannot justify the circumstances that would force people into these situations.. what would would the other options entail? Allowing these blood-thirsty tribes to roam free to attempt to destroy you again in another generation? Or bring them into your tribe.. keep them under servitude.
It's a rough world. God could not say "Thou shalt not keep slaves" any more than He could say "Though shalt not get into fights with other tribes". People are going to do what people are going to do.. God was well aware that these situations would arise and made sure that there were guide lines to prevent the Jews from becoming as blood-thirsty and amoral as the rest of humanity.

1 Timothy 2:12
I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; instead, she is to be silent.

So..
Being that there are plenty PLENTY of other places where Paul gives guidelines for both men and woman for public prayers and professions.. and there are also women mentioned that are highly respected among the elders.. if not elders themselves.. along with the account of Priscilla correcting a man on his incorrect understanding... this clearly can not carry the misogynistic meaning that people accuse it of.
This is a letter from one man to another man.. personal.. not written to an entire church.. Now look at the beginning of the letter:
1Ti 1:3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus, when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine,
1Ti 1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.


Paul is writing to Timothy concerning the false doctrine or false gospels being spread around in Ephesus. People were teaching other doctrines that were contrary to the salvation of the Messiah.. probably regarding both legalistic 'Judaizers'.. trying to tell non-Jews that they had to follow Mosaic law to be a Christian.. and probably a slew of Gnostics... You can see this reading the rest of the letter as Paul specifies and expounds upon the truth concerning those things.
1Ti 1:6 From which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling;
1Ti 1:7 Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.


It is more likely that this is a particular woman that was responsible for spreading some false gospel.. These would be the same people that wrote the Gnostic Gospels like the Gospel of Mary and Thomas and Judas.. Christian fan fiction by people that needed to study more and stop trying to put their own little slant on everything to suit their personal desires... There is even a Gosple of Eve written around that time.
The Greek word for woman used in these passages is the Nominative Singular gynē. Singular.
He follows with:
1Ti 2:13-14 For Adam was first formed, then Eve
And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

While I could decide that this is simply Paul explaining to Timothy how woman are open to spiritual perception....and be fine with that.. It seems more likely to me that this is still one side of a polemic against whatever this false teaching from this particular woman was..
Having been into Gnosticism in the past.. it wouldn't surprise me that it didn't teach that the first thing in existence was a primordial Feminine cosmos which was inseminated by mystic God-sperm.. giving birth to the world.. pretty much the pagan duality God/Goddess archetypes that have dominate many other pagan religions.. only some of the Gnostics took it a step further and made the Female Goddess be before the the Male.. because her cosmic womb had to exist first to become inseminated with the God sperm.. (I'm not kidding! Look it up!) There also seemed to mix in Egyptian paganism into the mix with with the feminine Goddess figure.. that they interpreted the Hebrew Eve as an incarnation of a Mother Goddess that gives birth to God.. chops him up and scatters him into the world...
I'm guessing they had some really potent cannabis in 1st century Asia Minor.
Now since it still refers to these people as being amongst the church.. it also seems that whoever this woman is.. it seems that Paul still has hope for her as she settles down and comes to learn more into the truth of Christ..

Alternately 1 Corinthians 14:33–35 does refer to (plural) woman being silent and orders them to not be disruptive during church meetings by prophesying and speaking in tongues. Now I am not going to deny the Biblical view point that Males are dominant over Females.. and some of that view may have to do with this.. but the truth is Male and Females are not equal. One has a ***** and the other has a ******. And regardless of of what one chooses to do with those things biology is biology... but I digress... The church in Corinth was apparently very chaotic by it's description.. Also people at this time were new converts fresh out of Greco/Roman paganism.. Paul mentions that it is the law that forbids woman to try to assert their dominance over mean during these church meetings.. and yes, Christian men living in the Roman world probably (and UNjustifiably) got very upset when women started gain more confidence and break the old taboos.. But there is a time and a place for those things.. and it is not unreasonable.. as a Christian woman.. If you KNOW that these meat-headed men are going to get into a hissy-fit over you trying to participate in what traditionally were male situation.. the woman would be the adult in this situation and just let the men do their thing.. since they are going to be childish over it.. Also if it was indeed the law of the land that woman should not do certain things.. then they still could be seeking to follow the law of the land.. The Romans had all kinds of taboos about the presence of females.. Paul is trying to keep the peace in the place where he knew people were going to get bent out of shape.. and thus more chaos erupts.. distracting from the true mission of teaching and preaching the Gospel to the pagan world.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#12 Oct 24 2014 at 7:54 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Being that there are plenty PLENTY of other places where Paul gives guidelines for both men and woman for public prayers and professions..
Given that there are plenty, PLENTY, of cases where churches used that specific line to keep women out really just goes to show how "religious people" are fine with picking and choosing passages that suites their needs for any given time. Let's not forget that lovely line about the Mark of Cain that Mormons used to keep black people out of the priesthood until about the 1980s.

So it's cool that I use a passage however I want, simply because I found a few words in a book that kind of agrees with what I want?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#13 Oct 24 2014 at 8:36 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
Elinda wrote:
Quote:
It's certainly no secret that the 'liberal' politician is an openly staunch enemy of religious freedom..
It's not reality nor a fact. It's an opinion, and a pretty short-sighted one at that. Religious freedom /= Religious privilege.

I stopped reading your self-righteous little gotcha post when I came to this part.

Why you so pissy these days?

edit: Smiley: mad No pissy 4JOO!

Edited, Oct 24th 2014 2:43pm by Elinda



So it's self-righteous to think that churches should not be subjected to such authoritarian tactics?
It is a religious privilege to be allowed to teach straight out of the Bible?
Do you really think that politicians with an agenda specifically geared toward gay-rights are NOT an enemy of people that teach what the Bible says is true.. that homosexuality is a sin and that the public obsession with trying to force people to think differently about it is the result of a nation of people that have finally abandoned God's Word. (and for the records I don't see gayness as any more of a sin than a married person watching ****.. or premarital sex... the main difference is that one things is a celebrated life-style.. openly bringing your bedroom activities into the public consciousness.. I don't care who you're having sex with. Do we have people that have a culture dedicated to cunnilingus too? Can I have parades across the nation celebrating doggy-style sex because missionary position was all that was technically illegal in some states?
The statement I made, yes it was rhetorical.. more for a reaction than anything..
But logically.. c'mom..
Yes.. classically liberal politicians want everyone to be on equal ground..I get that. So a religion that claims to be the only true religion.. by it's nature is an insult to those that do not believe that it is the truth.. Therefore it is incompatible with the liberal "one-size-fits-all" agenda.
It is not hard, from there, to go on an call some of the direct words from the Bible hate-speech and outlaw it altogether.
It's no mystery that there are certain religious views that are diametrically opposed to what is labeled as the "liberal" agenda.

Not to mention that it is actually the liberal gay political groups that are seeking privilege.. over mere equality. Because the truth is that gay-persons are an exception and not the rule.. but yet to demand that they are common enough that everybody should bend-over backwards and walk through egg-shells not to offend them... That is seeking privilege. Sorry gay people.. hate to break it to you.. but people are generally jerks that do not like anything that doesn't act, think, or look like them.. It's the reality.. So I understand wanting to fight back against that.. but there is a way to take it too far. It's like Muslims trying to shut down fast food restaurants for serving pork.. ignoring the rights of the rest of the world to not have to think like you think...
When calling a man a man and a woman a woman is considered intolerant because a minute portion of the population have gender identity.. complications? And yeah... I don't think that boys and girls in elementary schools should be using the same freaking bathroom! Is that intolerance of gender neutrality? Give me a break..

I realize here that I may be defending people that I may not agree with.. such as bigots that hate gay people automatically because they are gay... But the fact is that those people have a right to be ********.. even though I may not agree with it. I am not defending their actions or views.. just their right to think that way. You cannot legislate for people to change their nature.. that sort of things involves a lot more than shoving laws down people throats.... It won't work any more than in the 50s when gay people were forced to undergo hormone treatments or threatened with jail to "cure" them..
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#14 Oct 24 2014 at 8:46 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Being that there are plenty PLENTY of other places where Paul gives guidelines for both men and woman for public prayers and professions..
Given that there are plenty, PLENTY, of cases where churches used that specific line to keep women out really just goes to show how "religious people" are fine with picking and choosing passages that suites their needs for any given time. Let's not forget that lovely line about the Mark of Cain that Mormons used to keep black people out of the priesthood until about the 1980s.

So it's cool that I use a passage however I want, simply because I found a few words in a book that kind of agrees with what I want?



Yeah. No. They are wrong and I will tell any Christian to there face these same things (and have).
2 Peter 1:20
First of all, you should know this: No prophecy of Scripture comes from one's own interpretation,


And sorry.. I've never heard about whatever you are talking about with the Mormons.. I probably find that religion as ridiculous as you find mine.



____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#15 Oct 24 2014 at 10:17 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
2 Peter 1:20
First of all, you should know this: No prophecy of Scripture comes from one's own interpretation,
Exactly, we should laugh at people that hide behind the lines that would be interpreted as homophobic.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#16 Oct 24 2014 at 11:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
gbaji wrote:
Interesting. I thought it was voter suppression to not allow politics to be preached from the pulpit. On election day even!
Wasn't it supposed to be some kind of inciting hate crimes thing? Honestly I haven't been following it closely. The whole "this subpena is way to broad" slant was pretty much was how it stuck me as well.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#17 Oct 27 2014 at 6:57 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Interesting. I thought it was voter suppression to not allow politics to be preached from the pulpit. On election day even!
Wasn't it supposed to be some kind of inciting hate crimes thing? Honestly I haven't been following it closely. The whole "this subpena is way to broad" slant was pretty much was how it stuck me as well.


It would have been helpful if Kelvy had linked to the source for his initial quote (and therefore the actions we're supposed to be examining), but if she issued this subpoena based on some alleged violation of their church status, then the issue becomes one of religious speech where it intersects with politics and is relevant to the point I made (cross thread shenanigans abide!). If she was doing this just on a basic "Preaching that homosexuality is a sin constitutes hate speech", she's got a much much bigger battle to fight IMO.

My understanding of the issue (admittedly not well researched) is that she was upset that some religious leaders were saying things that countered her own political agenda and decided to use her position and power to intimidate them into silence. It's a pretty straight up violation of the 1st amendment, even ignoring the religious angle. It's a gross violation when that angle is added though.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#18 Oct 28 2014 at 7:26 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
My understanding of the issue (admittedly not well researched)
"Wild guess."
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#19 Oct 28 2014 at 7:03 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
My understanding of the issue (admittedly not well researched)
"Wild guess."


Not super wild, but sure. Was I wrong?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#21 Oct 29 2014 at 6:46 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
gbaji wrote:
It would have been helpful if Kelvy had linked to the source for his initial quote


BAH!! Having to link to what one is talking about means that one has no confidence is being able to regurgitate the info intelligently into the hungry beaks of those that starve for truth!!
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#22 Oct 29 2014 at 8:05 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Was I wrong?
If you were, would you be satisfied with being right by being lucky? I know I wouldn't, I prefer being right because I'm right.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#23 Oct 29 2014 at 8:13 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Was I wrong?
If you were, would you be satisfied with being right by being lucky? I know I wouldn't, I prefer being right because I'm right.

Don't take this from him, it's the only shot he's got.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#24 Oct 29 2014 at 8:45 AM Rating: Good
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,112 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
we should laugh at people that hide behind the lines that would be interpreted as homophobic.


Well, YOU should laugh at them, maybe. I am mandated to offer correction.. in love.Smiley: cool

Edited, Oct 29th 2014 10:45am by Kelvyquayo
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#25 Oct 29 2014 at 2:34 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Was I wrong?
If you were, would you be satisfied with being right by being lucky?


I prefer the term "intuitive". It's not like I'm just randomly guessing here. I'm looking at partial information and filling in the blanks.

Quote:
I know I wouldn't, I prefer being right because I'm right.


But if I'm right, then I'm right. Right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 343 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (343)