The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever

Karma Chameleons

March 28, 2009 | 42 Comments

The reality-based community is working overtime to heap scorn upon pro-life activist Gingi Edmonds for pointing out that the victims of the Montana plane crash perished near the Tomb of the Unborn, and that they were the family of the owner of the nation’s largest for-profit abortion chain. For example, Kevin Beck calls her “hateful,” “angry,” an “embarassment,” and “human swinehood.” In a comment, he predicts that “[h]er reputation is never going to recover from this.”

Let’s suppose, instead, that Gingi was talking about a disaster with a greater toll on human life. Like the earthquake in China last year that killed not 14, but 80,000 — including thousands of children and babies. Let’s say that she used these words to suggest that China’s treatment of Tibet was responsible:

Then all this earthquake and all this stuff happened, and I thought, is that karma? When you’re not nice, that the bad things happen to you?

Obama-endorser Sharon Stone said that, but her reputation seemed to recover just fine. In fact, she was invited to the Presidental inauguration. Nobody protested her attendance there — in fact, the only fuss at all was the hissy fit that she threw when the organizers wouldn’t admit her entire entourage.

I suggest that there is a scientific reason for the lack of outrage. Having controlled for all other variables that might explain the quick forgiveness accorded Stone for her statement, I have determined that there is only one factor that would explain why she is not a social pariah. She loves baby-killing!

NOTE: Beck helpfully links to Andrea Shea King’s radio interview with Gingi Edmonds earlier this week. Among other things, she discusses her efforts to warn others of Feldkamp’s abortion business (passing out flyers to patients of his dentistry chain and informing his neighbors) and her views on President Obama and Governor Kathleen Sebelius. Notably, she relates that she used to be roommates with the survivor of a partial birth abortion.

For her part, King makes reference to a fascinating interview she did with a man whose mother chose adoption over abortion 42 years ago. He tracked her down last year.  The mother’s name is Andrea Shea King.

Comments

42 Responses to “Karma Chameleons”

  1. Columbo
    March 28th, 2009 @ 6:42 pm

    It’s all a front.
    These pro-choice atheists and theists that are going to cry “THE HORROR” over Gingi’s comments.
    That’s a coincidence that any reasonable person would point out.
    If George Bush and his family were to lose control of their car, crash and die after it spun out on an oil slick on some road I wouldn’t doubt that Kevin Beck (and others) in their phoney nobleness would be pointing out similar coincidences and noting similar karmic possibilities.

    And, all of these people are fine with the abortion of unborn babies to boot. A verbal sentiment of one person, Gingi, rattles them so greatly. But they can stand in agreement with the practice of tearing apart an innocent, helpless, unborn baby child.

    There MUST be some GK Chesterton quote that touches on this exact type of absurdity.

  2. Beelzebub
    March 28th, 2009 @ 7:51 pm


    Then all this earthquake and all this stuff happened, and I thought, is that karma? When you’re not nice, that the bad things happen to you?

    I’m sure you’ve heard the maxim: Two wrongs don’t make a right.


    There MUST be some GK Chesterton quote that touches on this exact type of absurdity.

    Why am I sure that you’ll report it immediately the moment it hits you.

  3. Beelzebub
    March 28th, 2009 @ 7:59 pm


    If George Bush and his family were to lose control of their car, crash and die after it spun out on an oil slick on some road I wouldn’t doubt that Kevin Beck (and others) in their phoney nobleness would be pointing out similar coincidences and noting similar karmic possibilities.

    There’s a grain of truth there. I think this would be very true if it were only GB himself, just as Christopher Hitchens snickered on Hannity when Falwell was found slumped in his office and said “give him an enema, you can bury him in a matchbox.” I must admit, I found that amusing, but only because I found Falwell loathsome. (Falwell said things that make Sharon Stone sound like a saint.) What about if Falwell had perished with 7 children and 7 adults. Would I be snickering then? No, and I strongly doubt even PZ Myers would be snickering either.

  4. lily
    March 28th, 2009 @ 8:09 pm

    You believe more than I can, Bbub. I don’t see them snickering; I see them laughing their heads off. We can simply point to too many really loathsome examples of this sort of thing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

    Well, of course, I am saying that there is no doubt.

  5. JoAnna
    March 28th, 2009 @ 8:19 pm

    There MUST be some GK Chesterton quote that touches on this exact type of absurdity.

    How about:

    “Let all the babies be born. Then let us drown those we do not like.” - Babies and Distributism, GK’s Weekly, 11/12/32

    Although this one works well too:

    “Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable.” – ILN, 10/23/09

  6. Columbo
    March 28th, 2009 @ 11:55 pm

    “What about if Falwell had perished with 7 children and 7 adults. Would I be snickering then? No, and I strongly doubt even PZ Myers would be snickering either.”

    BS.
    I know of a notable figure in the atheist camp that was quite happy about the situation.
    Abbie Smith (aka: ERV), one of PZ Myers favorite posters at scienceblogs. PZ liked her so much he did presentations with her.
    Let’s see that little comment she made about Falwell:

    “Falwell is an ass. His family is a bunch of little assholes. Im glad Falwells dead, and I wish he took his poor little family with him.”

    Sure BB.

  7. Columbo
    March 28th, 2009 @ 11:59 pm

    Guess what….
    PZ never called her on this comment.
    Never criticized her for it.

    Kevin Beck never called her on this comment.
    Never criticized her for it.

    She made it PRIOR to being welcomed to “science”blogs.

  8. Columbo
    March 29th, 2009 @ 12:03 am

    But, that was probably a one time occassion for Myers’ buddy Abbie Smith……… right?

    Wrong.

    There’s this nice comment:

    “Ted Haggard is just a meth snorting hypocritical fag. (and I hope he shoots himself in the head)”.

    Again,
    This was back BEFORE she came to scienceblogs with PZ Myers, Kevin Beck, et al.
    Back when she was operating here: http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/

    PZ and Beck are liars.
    They hold person A to one standard and they cry “HOW DARE YOU” when person B commits a lesser sin.

  9. Beelzebub
    March 29th, 2009 @ 12:19 am

    The only thing relevant there is this:

    “Falwell is an ass. His family is a bunch of little assholes. Im glad Falwells dead, and I wish he took his poor little family with him.”

    –which I can’t comment on since I don’t know anything about his family. But if they’re anywhere near as hateful as he was, her sentiment might be justified.

  10. Columbo
    March 29th, 2009 @ 12:22 am

    “which I can’t comment on since I don’t know anything about his family. But if they’re anywhere near as hateful as he was, her sentiment might be justified.”

    PRICELESS!!!!!!!!
    THank you sooooo much BB.
    It’s justified people. See that?! Now a similar situation where the sentiment is justified. And guess what? Gingi spoke nowhere near as insensitive as Abbie did.

    It’s justified.
    But, if you’re in the practice of tearing apart, sucking the brain out of an unborn baby the consequences that may befall your loved ones is…….. BB the answer (from your perspective of course)….. UNJUSTIFIED.

    Hypocrisy.

  11. Kamikaze189
    March 29th, 2009 @ 12:52 am

    Shorter RT and Gingi: “God uses the bloody corpses of dead children to send messages. But he loves fetuses. But he’ll use dead children as postcards.”

    Perhaps this is why god so badly needs babies to be born — he needs to constantly kill them to make a point. What a charming fellow your god is. Does he know about email? Maybe some Christian will kill a few babies back at him, just to let him know.

  12. Beelzebub
    March 29th, 2009 @ 3:30 am

    Not so fast there, Peter Falk. You haven’t demonstrated how this Feldkamp chap’s family was “hateful” or in any way worthy of scorn. Unless you do that, my charge still holds.

    “Perhaps this is why god so badly needs babies to be born — he needs to constantly kill them to make a point. What a charming fellow your god is.”

    I’m not exactly sure how Christians even feel they have a leg to stand on regarding abortion. The God of Moses (OT), well, that is to say, the Christian God, was completely okay with taking a troublesome child to the city gates and having the poor twit stoned to death. Just exactly how do you get from there to “every sperm is sacred”? That’s got to be the biggest 180 of all time.

  13. frustrated (mk)
    March 29th, 2009 @ 5:57 am

    BBub,

    Not so fast there, Peter Falk. You haven’t demonstrated how this Feldkamp chap’s family was “hateful” or in any way worthy of scorn. Unless you do that, my charge still holds.

    But nobody here is celebrating the death of his family. That’s what you seem to be missing. All we have done is point out the irony. We have all said that the whole thing was a tragedy.

    Pointing out that perhaps there was some sort of lesson to be learned from the irony, is not the same as doing a happy dance over those deaths.

  14. Beelzebub
    March 29th, 2009 @ 6:47 am


    But nobody here is celebrating the death of his family. That’s what you seem to be missing.

    No, I think I’ve got a pretty good appreciation of that.

    In the final analysis I think the old strictures really are best. In the face of family tragedy it’s really best to keep one’s mouth zipped. That’s why when Falwell died, while I inwardly chuckled at morbid jokes about him, there was the little voice telling me that I shouldn’t. So really, it’s more than mere silence. It’s the personal discipline of hands-off, of topic verboten. “I’m going to let the people most closely affected by this alone, to deal with it in peace.” Is anyone here really contesting this utterly common-sense morality?

    Gingi crossed the line. Perhaps she didn’t realize the gravity of her transgress, perhaps she did, but it happened.

  15. K T Cat
    March 29th, 2009 @ 7:32 am

    Man, Beelzebub needs a vacation. Or a hobby. Or something.

    As for the post, even if this woman said what she did out of pure malice, I’m not sure just what that proves in the larger scheme of things. If it’s a discussion of ideas, such as the concept of allowing babies to live, then it doesn’t seem to make much a difference if this proponent or that said something outrageous.

    If what you really want to do is determine which side’s activists are most annoying, then by all means, this is a worthy conversation.

  16. lily
    March 29th, 2009 @ 7:50 am

    Gingi did not cross the line. You are all over the board, yet again, Bbub, justifying ugly comments made by atheists and their gloating over tragedies befalling others they don’t like. However, Gingi did nothing of that sort. She reflected on the tragedy from a specifcally Christian point of view, wondering why it happened and what it might mean.

    It clearly jars you all to be reminded that we believe that God is always in control and that he is not only a God of love but also of justice. You hate the idea that you will answer to him, as each and every one of us must and you hate it when we state this clearly and unambiguously.

    As I said earlier, turn on the tv after any tragedy and you will see every conceivable talking head on the planet doing them same thing from what ever perspective informs their view of reality. We all try to make sense of events like this tragedy. You don’t like how we view it? Tough.

    We understand that you hate Christianity, so I am afraid there is no help for your faux outrage.

  17. Columbo
    March 29th, 2009 @ 9:48 am

    BB,
    You already showed your inconsistency on the matter.
    If you’re too blind to see it, which I doubt, then that’s on you.

    You already said that one’s reaction to Falwell might be justified.

  18. Columbo
    March 29th, 2009 @ 9:51 am

    Kamikaze189 said:

    “Shorter RT and Gingi: “God uses the bloody corpses of dead children to send messages. But he loves fetuses. But he’ll use dead children as postcards.””

    No one said that. Learn how to attack a position by actually attacking a position.

    “Perhaps this is why god so badly needs babies to be born — he needs to constantly kill them to make a point. What a charming fellow your god is. Does he know about email? Maybe some Christian will kill a few babies back at him, just to let him know.”

    Nope, just the god in your twisted mind does that stuff.

  19. Columbo
    March 29th, 2009 @ 10:11 am

    “Not so fast there, Peter Falk. You haven’t demonstrated how this Feldkamp chap’s family was “hateful” or in any way worthy of scorn. Unless you do that, my charge still holds.”

    Your charge still holds?
    You’d need a charge to stick first.

    “I’m not exactly sure how Christians even feel they have a leg to stand on regarding abortion. The God of Moses (OT), well, that is to say, the Christian God, was completely okay with taking a troublesome child to the city gates and having the poor twit stoned to death. Just exactly how do you get from there to “every sperm is sacred”? That’s got to be the biggest 180 of all time.”

    Oh great, we’ve seen BB butcher the understandings of other things…. here he tries to tackle the OT.
    This was a Hellenistic culture the Jews found themselves in. A culture that wanted to absorb them and their unique identity of God’s chosen people. An identity that could have been easily lost. The lose that identity they would therefore lose the faith that was delivered to them from their Fathers… the faith in the one God who revealed himself to them as well as the promises of that God.

    So you also misunderstand the change from OT to NT.
    In the NT it’s no longer a message for simply one chosen people, the scope is more broad; faith in the Lord Christ is universal. Faith in Christ because tantamount to that Hellenistic culture…. it could absorb all.

    So try to think of it for a moment, you knucklehead.
    You have a distinguished group of people (very limited in their numbers) who God chose as His people. They are living in a culture where that identity, history and the promises given to them could all be in jeopardy from without (the surrounding culture). This threat is so great that we see numerous moral, ceremonial and ritualistic rules (that get mocked today, anachronistically by people like you) enacted to serve as a wall in this Hellenistic culture to give the Jewish people a fighting chance to maintain that faith.

    There are not only threats from without, but within. Members within that community that could go against the morals and commandments and also serve to tear apart that unique identity.

    So sacrifice the WHOLE identity of the chosen people. Cut the faith that ties them to God and all of His promises.

  20. Christina
    March 29th, 2009 @ 12:20 pm

    Not to make too fine a point, Beelzebub, the man invested heavily in Death. Literally. Invested in Death. So when Death turned around and took a huge bite out of the guy’s family, some people are going to notice and wonder.

  21. frustrated (mk)
    March 29th, 2009 @ 4:00 pm

    Columbo,

    I’m taking Jeff Cavins Time Line Bible Study and I just read Maccabees today…What a hoot to read what you wrote.

    And all too true. From the Jews in Auschwitz’ viewpoint, Hitler’s death was literally a “Godsend”. To Hitler? Not so much. When we step in to protect an oppressed peoples we are hailed as heroes. When God does it, He’s a monster.

    Go figure.

  22. Columbo
    March 29th, 2009 @ 6:05 pm

    Frustrated (mk) I’m going to have to check out Jeff Cavins Time Line Bible Study. Thanks for mentioning it.

    Yeah,
    that used to be one of my big arguments against Christianity: “Look how harsh God is with His chosen people. Why isn’t God more like a happy uncle (to borrow from C.S. Lewis) who just wants everyone to have a grand ol’ time?”

    Through actually reading it (and not parroting others criticisms) and through learning about the cultural trends they were up against it started making much more sense.

    I think of a classroom of students in high school. You have a teacher who has been made impotent by the school board and the principle to actually handle the problem herself. You have a student that is going to intentionally push her buttons and act out to see how much he can get away with. Quickly she loses control of the whole class because that behavior spreads. Students spend more time messing around than actually learning.
    I was that student. I didn’t care about learning and I certainly didn’t care about other students getting a good education. I liked to joke around so I liked attention to be on me. A student like me was a cancer in a classroom

  23. frustrated (mk)
    March 29th, 2009 @ 8:17 pm

    Columbo,

    I was that kid too, lol. In hindsight? Our teachers should have “Thrown the BUMS out!”

    Funny how both of us ended up embracing the very things we hated as teens…learning, knowledge, Truth, responsibility for our actions and the Church…talk about irony!

    Hey, were we in the same school???

  24. Richard Norris
    March 29th, 2009 @ 9:45 pm

    It’s kind of interesting that in what may have been a message to Feldkamp, everyone gets to figure out what it might or should mean to him. Do you really need to hear from someone that your children died in a place that was propituitous in getting a message across? No, I don’t think so. I think that Bud Feldkamp would be able to get a coincidental message meant for him if it was sent by God, sans all of the concern and omen reading of the faithful.
    I think the real outrage felt is that Christians feel the need to say anything about this when they feel God may already have effectively spoken to Bud and his remaining family.

  25. Columbo
    March 29th, 2009 @ 10:27 pm

    “Do you really need to hear from someone that your children died in a place that was propituitous in getting a message across? No, I don’t think so”

    Great, you don’t think so. Bravo.
    Guess what, Ric.. the world isn’t tailored to what you think should be expected or not.
    You can’t wrap your mind around the possibility, I can’t wrap my mind around how some can be cool with abortion. A living thing at its most innocent, helpless, harmless stage and some people are willing to kill, some are willing to allow it, and some stand by like “no big deal”.

    You think it’s a horrible thing if God were directly involved with this? Well, I think it’s a horrible thing that you’re fine with abortion.

    But at the end of the day, when we are all alone trying to fall asleep, you’re left with that impotent worldview. There’s nothing more out there for you.
    In my worldview all of those family members might be saved and maybe my pathetic little prayers can help.
    For you, it’s senseless; there’s no meaning one way or the other. The crash, the deaths, the different reactions – irrelevant.

    You’re not a very consistent atheist, Ric.
    I was an atheist I suffered from severe bouts of depression (not necessarily because of my atheism). But I knew one thing: nothing mattered.
    There was no one for me to cry “foul” to, because there was no standard that was being violated.
    I felt so alone and hollow at times I wanted to cry. But, when you’re in the company of only yourself and you know for certain that no God exists you don’t cry, because it doesn’t matter. You just count the hours or think up painless ways that might help you to skip the hours.
    If you’re an atheist, you’re a very odd variety…. but the vocal variety is the odd variety. They’re the ones that think it matters, when it doesn’t.
    You are shocked at your perceived “response of the Christians” because you think it’s in violation of some standard. There’s no standard, Ric and no one is doing anything wrong.

  26. Beelzebub
    March 30th, 2009 @ 2:47 am

    Columbo,
    Thanks, that kind of clarifies things. I can now see why when you were an atheist you were adrift on a sea of meaninglessness. Just one thing: that’s not the case for all atheists. There are those who simply can’t or won’t find meaning in this world until they perceive that some higher power has grabbed them by the scruff of the neck and rubbed their faces in it. I, however, am capable of finding my own meaning, and that may well be the equivalent of describing to you a color you’ve never seen.

    So I won’t bother.

  27. Beelzebub
    March 30th, 2009 @ 3:04 am

    –And, your explanation for Yahweh’s somewhat draconian measures don’t strike me as terribly satisfying.

    So you’re saying that this was just needed measure ::shrug::

    Deuteronomy 21
    21:18
    If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
    21:19
    Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
    21:20
    And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
    21:21
    And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

    Well, that’s great, but don’t then turn around and wax all hysterical about the evils of sucking cells out of women’s uteri.

  28. frustrated (mk)
    March 30th, 2009 @ 5:09 am

    BBub,

    I don’t think anyone here is waxing hysterical about the evil of sucking cells out of a woman’s uterus.

    We’re talking about abortion.

  29. lily
    March 30th, 2009 @ 7:17 am

    Bbub– that passage and many others are jarring today– but the fact is that fathers had the absolute right of life and death over their children in most, if not all, the ancient world. I don’t know of a single culture in which that wasn’t the norm. The Romans also had this right and they also had the absolute right to order wives and lovers to abort which was pretty much the same thing, since the death rate from it was horrific.

    The Jews’ practice was a bit of an improvement in that the parents couldn’t just kill on their own say so but had to get the agreement of the town (we are also not talking small children, normally, since they are rarely drunkards. Nor babies who wouldn’t eat their mashed peas)

  30. Stones Cry Out - If they keep silent… » Things Heard: e60v1
    March 30th, 2009 @ 8:04 am

    […] Popular song as lede. […]

  31. Catholic Cat
    March 30th, 2009 @ 8:31 am

    Hi Beezlebub,

    “Well, that’s great, but don’t then turn around and wax all hysterical about the evils of sucking cells out of women’s uteri.”

    I can see how that seems kind of contradictory.
    I don’t think this explanation will completely settle it for you but let me give it a shot.
    The child we’re talking about is well before the age of conscious awareness of his/her sins. She’s an innocent and unborn child.
    The child in the example from the Old Testament wouldn’t be a child prior to his/her conscious awareness of sin; it would have to be a child at or beyond the age of reason.
    For the Jewish people those commandments were very important.
    It’s not like rules that we set today where it really doesn’t matter if they are obeyed or not. Since this child would have been at the age of reason it’s presupposed that he understood the rules and decided to break them anyway.
    It seems harsh from our vantage, I will definitely grant you that. But I hope you’ll be willing to understand that this was a very tenuous hold the people had on their faith. Tenuous by virtue of the surrounding culture they were in as well as by virtue of people from within that were willing to consciously violate those rules.

  32. EclecticGuru
    March 30th, 2009 @ 9:10 am

    I am officially heaping scorn on Sharon Stone for being a magic-thinking idiot.

    Issue resolved. Next?

  33. Catholic Cat
    March 30th, 2009 @ 11:06 am

    LOL!

    EG, you made me spit up mountain dew on my keyboard :)

    THANKS ALOT!

  34. Columbo
    March 30th, 2009 @ 8:52 pm

    Catholic Cat don’t play around with EG.
    He’s not your buddy and I can bet you money he thinks your an idiot for “being a magic-thinking idiot”.

    No EG, the issue isn’t resolved.
    Here’s your problem. You think we are actually interacting with intention, you really believe that you hold your beliefs for reasons such as you believe them to make sense, you believe that you understand them, you believe that you consciously chose them over competing/less reasonable beliefs…. which you used your mind intentionally to make such decisions.
    But, your materialistic philosophy doesn’t allow for any of that.
    At best, staying consistent with your views, the chemicals that constitute your brain happened to take on one configuration opposed to another. And it happened completely independent of your mind (which doesn’t really exist) acting intentionally. Because for you minds (which don’t exist) can’t act intentionally.
    One configuration (opposed to any other) is no more true or false than any other.
    You’re not really arguing your points and I’m not really apprehending your arguments and disagreeing with them. These are just chemical reactions and neurons firing. And you are passively ‘experiencing’ them.

    If you introduce any other factor into this equation then you too are “a magic thinking idiot”.

  35. EclecticGuru
    March 31st, 2009 @ 2:07 am

    Columbo, I’d love to discuss my beliefs with you, but I think that’s off-topic.

    We’re discussing the beliefs of Sharon Stone and Gingi Edmonds here.

    And as the Raving Theist pointed out, their beliefs are equal in their magic-thinking idiocy. Case solved. Good catch, Raving Theist!

    Time to move on to the next pair of magic thinking idiots!

  36. Beelzebub
    March 31st, 2009 @ 5:24 am

    EG,
    Thanks for boiling it down to something sensible. As I said at the outset, two wrongs don’t make a right. The rather partisan technique of searching desperately for hypocrisy in the opposing camp seems to be very popular these days. But it’s not an argument. If anything, it’s further admission of guilt. RT knows what Edwards did was wrong, that’s why he picked the Stone analogy, which was also an instance of idiocy.

    “And as the Raving Theist pointed out, their beliefs are equal in their magic-thinking idiocy. Case solved. Good catch, Raving Theist!”

    Exactly. Case closed, dudes.

  37. Catholic Cat
    March 31st, 2009 @ 8:55 am

    Calm down Columbo.
    I’m friends with people who probably think I’m an idiot (hopefully only at times though).
    His comment was funny – me laughing doesn’t mean I think he wants to be my friend. Where did you pull that one out of?
    You’re doing more harm than good by calling people idiots.

  38. EclecticGuru
    March 31st, 2009 @ 9:01 pm

    ## Warning ##

    The following post contains an impolite word.

    ## End Warning ##

    I am a former Catholic, and some of my friends were also from the church. I’m self-hating, certainly, but not hating enough to think all Catholics (former or current) are unworthy of friendship.

    Just because I’m a jerk doesn’t mean I don’t like you. It’s just a reflection of my own personality flaws.

    Now Pentecostals, that’s another matter. They’re all asshats.

    I mean, at least we can agree on that, right?

  39. EclecticGuru
    March 31st, 2009 @ 9:08 pm

    Oh, and as a post-script type comment.

    In addition to having some respect for Catholics (for self-interested reasons), I also like:

    1) Mormons — family/community oriented faith to the extreme. I am also very family/community oriented, but, you know, for non-magical reasons.

    and

    2) Scientologists — Their mere existence fills me with a certain kind of joy, and not a mean, rude, or crude kind. But rather a respect for their cult-promotion skills. Ancient alien possession? Seriously.. thetan rhymes with Satan! Genius. Sheer genius. And I mean it. Those guys are hard core.

  40. Columbo
    April 1st, 2009 @ 11:29 pm

    Now I look like (and probably am) a dick.

    EG,
    Sorry for acting like a shit to you. There’s a way to handle one’s self in a debate and I did a very poor job.
    I apologize if I put you on the defensive. I’m sure if someone were to talk to me the way I addressed you and others on this board I would have responded back in a similar (or worse) manner.

    Thanks for being the bigger man before I was able to, EG.

    Frustrated (mk) & lily, thanks for your seemingly preternatural gift of patience.

    CC, sorry for jumping on you too.

    I can’t promise that I am completely changed, but I will promise to make an effort to grow.

    God bless.

  41. Louise
    April 3rd, 2009 @ 2:30 am

    Also, RT, karma is like “cool” and God’s judgment is like “not cool” so…

  42. Ordained Atheist
    April 29th, 2009 @ 4:37 pm

    Sharon Stone realized what she said was wrong and apologized. Has Gingi apologized yet?

  • Basic Assumptions

    First, there is a God.

    Continue Reading...

  • Search

  • Quote of the Day

    • Fifty Random Links

      See them all on the links page.

      • No Blogroll Links