You should. She answered a post to Quip, Arthur. You KNOW it. What is more important here? Truth or saving face? Both if you can, but I'm seeing a HUGE discrepancy. Honestly, you know why I think I'm on ignore? BECAUSE I'm one of 'them.' She really is like this now. The saddest part of this all is that before SHE moved to her new position, she liked me. I'm not the one who has changed, Arthur. :nono: I'm the same as I've always been.
I think she is just reading and seeing something clearly here. I really did not draw first-blood so to speak AND hold no malice toward her for it anyway. I may have become a bit stern, but not to the intent of having her putting me on ignore or offending her. We REALLY need to be able to disagree and still be able to talk to one another. I don't care what you say to me, as long as you are committed to dialoguing it out with me in some kind of sincerity. Quip deserves what he gets. You've done INCREDIBLY better than Anna did coming to both of their defense and so I appreciate you, but I still think you can do better. And that's honestly what I think and believe here. I think sometimes you are wrong, like now, even if you don't see it. I truly appreciate you and I often walk away friends yet over our disagreements and this looks like another one. :e4e:
To post this to you this I had to make an exception to my rule of not talking about people I have on ignore, but want Lon to know that I hold no malice towards him, never have, and it's not a matter of liking or not liking him either - and the conversation we had in this thread didn't make me angry, just kind of bemused at what he was saying. Having made that clear, I'm the one who determines when I want to walk away from a conversation and who I want to put on ignore and this was one of those times, because it was pointless going around in circles with him. Definitely not retracting any of what I said about religious liberty and whose values determine it, or about how I thought he was framing his argument - but I definitely said it without the "emoting" he projected onto me.
Anyway, many thanks again.
... Would you like some cold lasagna?
You have no sense of adventure.
Yes, but not against me (or vise versa if you follow). I realize I'm one of 'them' but I ALWAYS liked Anna and she was NEVER this way with me prior. As I said, I may have become firm, or terse with such, but it wasn't me. She wanted an answer to a question that was 'us/them.' I don't think that way. Families are just families. I'd HAVE to imagine, love, kindness, joy, peace, patience, goodness, self-control, gentleness isn't just Christian, but something ALL families value, even if they are horrible at any particular. Am I right? Family values are just family values? Whether or not someone like Anna agreed, It didn't require anything as toward as what I received. I can appreciate being scapegoated. I'm fine but if I'm cut-off, the effort is over and there is a certain amount of frustration. Again, Anna never used to be this way with me. There IS a change. You can discuss with me details about that change, but certainly interjecting in my dialogue with Quip in a mean-spirited and snarky manner, trying to make communication 'my' problem and putting me on ignore must be included in that assessment. I'm happy you are her friend and even away from TOL. I'm just telling you to be more of an 'appropriate' advocate. Deal with facts and go where they lead. Honest assessment will make you a BETTER friend (to both of us).
If I didn't care about her, it wouldn't be as frustrating as it is. I am often left wondering why I get this kind of feedback. I honestly assess that those who are 'against' the majority no longer 'like' the majority. That's a problem with their souls. It is a ripping and shredding sentiment. For me, it'd literally be hating part of my family. I have conservatives and liberals both politically and religiously. I HAVE to learn to love and hopefully, meaningfully communicate with them.
2 Corinthians 4:4 but how do you reconcile that with being a part of a nation that is ours? Why are we to pray for those who lead us, for example, if not some involvement?
The ACLU has had a hand in whatever destruction is ruining this country and with no guise of good intention of 'protecting' religious liberty. They have been a secular front for atheists and atheist agenda for a very long time. I realize Anna has me on ignore. This is for posterity of the thread. There are other institutions very much against the agenda of the ACLU, a very secular and atheist organization.
Yes, but I'm asking, regardless if Satan is the 'god of this world (age)' should we, for example vote against abortion? It is at least an expression of religious values. If you read the link I gave a moment ago, against the ACLU, they tried to have 'sentiments' removed simply because they recognized them as coming from a bible. That, imho is just dumb. You cannot be so against Muslim religion, for example, that you'd want "Spend your money for good: to help your parents, your family, orphans, wayfarers, and the needy." removed from any public or private institution. It is completely stupid to be against something just because it 'came from a Muslim' or 'a Christian' or 'an atheist.' It is anti-intellectual and counterproductive and an act of destruction to attack it.
