krezebebe's reply history at Help.com

[quote hotdog321]Let me just say this, I may have “steriotyped” you but what do you think you’ve been doing ?..I WILL NOT stand by and take such insults.[/quote]

You STILL haven’t read ANY of the posts I wrote. Had you read it you would realize that it IS a statement of the FACTS and NOT a judgement of HOMOSEXUALS. Would YOU READ IT PLEASE.

Your reactionary prejudicial backlash is disgusting. Take a minute and READ THE POST.

[quote tictactomm]…Hinduism is a tricky one, but I would consider Zoroaster…[/quote]

Zoroaster isn’t a guy. ;) Zoroastrianism is semetic (Persian) in origin while Hinduism is aryan (Indian). But I see your point. In fact it’s hard to put a charasmatic leader at the head of any of the ancient religions be it the Greeks, Persians, Indians, Chinese or Japanese…although what the Chinese worshipped before Confucius’ and Lao Tzu’s day I don’t really know.

I love quotes. Two of my favorites:

“Most people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.” -William James

“Beer is proof that God wants mankind to be happy” -Ben Franklin

I hear pigs are the best way to dispose of bodies, but you have to have 10 to 12 at a time…pigs that is, not bodies…

[quote answers]I’ve heard something about Satan being evil because Humans were to rule over the Angels in heaven…[/quote]

Satan is evil because he is prideful (ezekiel 28:16), and this is the only reason given in the bible (that I know of) that Lucifer was cast from Heaven. The rest is mythology and bed-time stories.

[quote tictactomm]Can we name one that didn’t have, somewhere at its source, a charismatic leader that attracted a following?[/quote]

Hinudism.

[quote tictactomm] I find that ironic that some fundamentalist sects (christian, muslim, jewish what have you) are considered non-mainstream now, when they are probably closer to the cult origins of that religion. Makes one think that in order to have that mass appeal, a cult also has to dim down some of its more marginalizing initial doctrines. [/quote]

Indeed, hence the term ‘fundementalist’…You’ve hit upon something there I think. But I would hardly call the taliban or al queda a cult…it doesn’t seem to “fit” you know what I mean?

[quote RckyMtnCoastie]If CO says it is okay to be married, the UT or NY shall aknowlege that as a legal bind.[/quote]

What laws apply to a married person that don’t apply to an unmarried person on a state-to-state level?

You have admitted you have a problem and that is frequently the hardest part! The next step is deciding you want to change. What would you have to sacrifice to change your life? Are you willing to make those sacrifices?

I like to think that it was that the roman numeral system did not allow romans to invent theoretical mathematics, which is exactly where Roman technology abruptly halts.

If you look at Roman intellectualism, there really isn’t a lot of it. No philosophers, no playwrites, no real authors of note…Roman civilization was based on practical application of available technology, and they excelled at the practial fields — contruction, government, medicine and city planning.

Now if we think about it, if the Romans had pioneered in chemistry or physics they may have remained solvent even to this day. Why didn’t the Romans pioneer in these fields? I’ve come up with an interesting answer and I’d like to know what you guys think.

Each of these fields requires theoretical mathematics. The romans had access to Euclid, Pythagoras, Archimedes etc, so why didn’t Newton come around during Roman times to invent the Calculus and launch the Roman Empire into the modern age?

I think it was because of one simple reason: Roman Numerals.

It took the invention of the Arabaic Numeral System to create the calculus because roman numerals are almost impossible to conceptualize for very large or very small numbers. Had the Roman Empire had the Arabic numeral system, we might all still be speaking latin.

now what do you think about THAT?

[quote RckyMtnCoastie]
As for the political parts of it; what, aside from a post, are the American’s who see your post going to do to change the issue at hand?[/quote]

Give the power back to the states! Let the states decide individually about gay marriage. I don’t even understand why this is a federal issue because it is the states that grant marriage licenses anyway. Why is the Federal government even involved? Does anyone know?

hmm, not a bad idea…

from dictionary.com:

“a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader. “

so a cult has to be extremist and charamatic. If it fails on either condition it is a religion.

[quote tictactomm]
From my perspective a cult is a following that centers around an actual person (messiah, prophet, monk, fanatic)
[/quote]

Tictactomm, you have a good point…all the modern cults that come to mind have a central charismatic figure — Jim Jones, David Koresh, the comet guys, that one guy with God on the TV…

There’s a book I read in school called ‘influence’ by Chaldini that talked about cult leaders and how they worked…highly recommended reading by the way…

So is it definitive that a cult have a single religious, charasmatic figure at its center or does it require more than that? That is, can a cult be defined that way without being anything else?

Point taken and I apologize. I don’t get to use the phrase “drunken fit of hyper-verbilation” often, and it was uncalled for.

[quote hotdog321]…people like you …[/quote]

[quote hotdog321]And Just so you know, seperation of church and state are in the US Constitution…[/quote]

I love that phrase “people like you” because it demonstrates that the speaker is a person who judges others through stereotypes.

Just like you did not read and understand my post you have not read and understood the constitution. I can only assume you are referring to the first amendment, which states the the government may not establish an official religion nor restrict the free practice thereof. Nowhere does it say that the function of government must be secular nor does it state that law must be free of religious principles.

But I’m sure your minute and delicate study of constitutional law has already revelaed this to you, and made the above comment in a drunken fit of hyper-verbilation.

not yet you don’t