How do you pronounce Missouri
SuZ

Springfield, MO

#85 Jan 17, 2012
Completely original. Never heard that before. you are a genius.
Bobby E female

Victorville, CA

#87 Feb 7, 2012
In my early years (very, very long ago), I lived in Springfield, I went to grade school and Jr. Hi school there; then and now, I say it ending with ah. My father was born in Joplin. Missour-ah not Missour-e or Missour-i, That's for outsiders.
Hot Purple Rod

Sedalia, MO

#88 Feb 7, 2012
I pronounce it correctly.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#89 Apr 10, 2012
From http://mylanguages.org/hebrew_plural.php

English / Hebrew
alligator teneyn - תנ&#14 97;ן
alligators teneyneym - תנ&#14 97;ני& #1501;

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#90 Apr 17, 2012
Hominoidea - the hominoids - are the superfamily of apes. There two families of hominoids:[1] the
Hylobatidae hylobatids - consists of four genera and sixteen species of gibbon, including the lar gibbon and the siamang, collectively known as the lesser apes, and [2] Hominidae (the great apes)
The Hominidae or hominids - are the family of great apes, including four extant genera: chimpanzees, gorillas, humans, and orangutans. The two subfamilies are the pongids and hominines
Homininae hominines - are the subfamily of family Hominidae, which includes humans, gorillas and chimpanzees, and some extinct human relatives;
Hominini the hominins - is the tribe of subfamily Homininae that comprises Humans (Homo), two species of the genus Pan (Chimp and the Bonobo), their ancestors, and the extinct lineages of their common ancestor.
Hominina hominans - is the "human" subtribe, including genus Homo and its close but extinct relatives like Australopithecus and Ardipithecus, but not Pan (Pan is in the subtribe Panina).

[At present, hominin is only used for the group of bipedal apes that appeared after the split with Pan 6.3-8 mya. That group includes Ardipithecus, Astralopithecus and Homo, and excludes Pan. Pan is excluded from Hominini at the moment.]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2...

A hominoid is a member of the superfamily Hominoidea, the apes: great (chimp, gorilla, bonobo, man) and lesser (gibbons)
A hominid is a member of the family Hominidae, the great apes: man, chimps and bonobos, gorillas, orangs
A hominine is a member of the subfamily Homininae: gorillas, chimpanzees, humans (excludes orangutans).
A hominin is a member of the tribe Hominini: bonobos, chimpanzees and humans.
A hominan is a member of the sub-tribe Hominina: modern humans and their extinct relatives.
A human is a member of the genus Homo, of which Homo sapiens is the only extant species, and within that Homo sapiens sapiens is the only surviving subspecies.

Superfamily Hominoidea (`hominoids ')
**Family Hylobatidae
**********Genus Hylobates
**Family Hominidae (`hominids ')
****SubfamilyPonginae
**********Genus Pongo (`pongines ')
****SubfamilyGorillinae
**********Genus Gorilla (`gorillines ')
****SubfamilyHomininae (`hominines ')
******Tribe Panini
**********Genus Pan (`panins ')
******Tribe Hominini (`hominins')
********Subtribe Australopithecina (`australopiths ')
**********Genus Ardipithecus
**********Genus Australopithecus
**********Genus Paranthropus
********Subtribe Hominina (`hominans ')
**********Genus Homo

Order: PRIMATES  Suborder STREPSIRRHINI: non-tarsier prosimians ( wet-nosed primates )
↓
Suborder: HAPLORRHINI: tarsiers, monkeys and apes (dry-nosed primates)  Infraorder TARSIIFORMES: tarsiers ( dry-nosed prosimians )
↓
Infraorder: SIMIIFORMES monkeys, apes and man (higher primates)  (Taxon PLATYRHINI) NewWorld Simians
↓
Taxon/Parvorder: CATARRHINI : OldWorld Simians  Superfamily CERCOPITHECOIDEA: Old World monkeys
↓
Superfamily HOMINOIDEA (hominoids) the apes  lesser apes (Family HYLOBATIDAE) Gibbons Genus Hylobates
↓
Family HOMINIDAE (hominids) great apes  (Subfamily PONGINAE) Orangutans Genus Pongo
↓
Subfamily HOMININAE (hominines) Gorilla, Pan and Homo  Gorillas Genus Gorilla
↓
Tribe HOMININI (hominins) Pan, Homo, Australopithecoids  Subtribe PANINA: Chimps and bonobos (Genus Pan)
↓
Subtribe HOMININA (Homo and Australopithecus)
↓
Genus Homo
aur56

Monett, MO

#91 Apr 18, 2012
Missouri EEEEEEEE always

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#92 May 15, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
The first religion that was common was animism, eventually that gave way to the pantheist religions which were really just more elaborate and humanized versions of animism. At least based on what the known history of religion, I should clarify, which shows that religion concepts were originally just based on fear then shifted to become more influenced by imagination as we grew in understanding. The ancient Egyptian mythology is one that I know a bit about so I tend to use them as examples a lot, but

the animism to anthropic religion is very clear there, as the gods they worshiped were mixes, they would exist as both animal and humanoid, moving between the shapes fluidly.
You seem to be using animism to mean having animal gods.

As I understand it, the progression is from [1] seeing spirits living in inanimate objects, to [2] worshiping actual animals or theor totems as gods, to [3] imagining half man-half animal gods, to [4] an imagined humanlike pantheons to [5] a monotheistic god.

As I understand it, in animism, there are sprites and fairies in the ponds and leaves animating them. Animal worship is different.

Here are a couple of words that might be new to you and useful:

Theriomorphic -(of deities) thought of or represented as having the form of beasts. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/therio...

Therianthropic -(of certain mythical creatures or deities) having a partly animal, partly human form http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/e...

If this general outline is correct, what we see is a change from explanation (why the leaves rustle in the trees) to worship and supplication, which probably represents the advent of the priestly class helping the king.

At first, the animals seemed most worthy to worship, then men. This probably represents a gradual awareness of human superiority resulting from human progress. At first, a raven or a bear were seen as superior for their speed or strength. Then, we learned how to capture the birds and kill, subdue, or domesticate the beasts. We recognized the existence of intelligence. something you have before you have enough to know it exists and that you have it.

So, the transformation from breast god to man gods likely represents the advent of human dominion over the animals and his eventual recognition that he had a gift greater than theirs.

Somewhere in there, the objects of worship go from the concrete, like nature and the animals, to abstractions, initially represented by totems and various other icons, and later just imagined. This was necessary for them to become therianthropic gods.

Eventually, anthropomorphic polytheism becomes monotheism, also probably an innovation of the priests and kings. And of course, this god is a king and tyrant.

This then becomes deism, removing the last vestiges of animism and replacing the universe run by a god with a godless, clockwork universe created to run naturally.

And then atheism.

How does that sound? It's pretty much all idol (sic) speculation.
STL Cards

Stafford, VA

#93 May 16, 2012
Only real way to say it is Missourah. As a native I can say that St. Louis says that a lot too. Missouria Indian Tribe and my family, which has said it for generations has spurred it on.
STL Cards

Stafford, VA

#94 May 16, 2012
Foreigners always correct me for saying it Missourah, but I don't care because I know what's right. I lived in good ol' STL for too long to let ignorant outsiders impede on what is a Missourah tradition.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#95 May 20, 2012
I'm adding sexual prudery to the list of cultural mores and societal values in America that can be attributed exclusively or almost exclusively to Christianity. The following are ideas that are prevalent in American life (and more, but my focus is on America) that I consider to be very harmful, and without Christianity, would not be factors in American daily life:

[1] Prudery
[2] Anti-Semitism
[3] Atheophobia
[4] Homophobia
[5] Anti-scientism and anti-rationalism.
[6] Misanthropy - the continual decrying of mans sin nature, his fall and failure, his abject worthlessness and worthiness of torture, and his utter dependency on the priests.

What this means, if correct, is that when the influence of the Christian church evaporates away after it does, American women will begin to have far fewer sexual hangups and be more like Europeans and Brazilians. That's got to make a lot of people very happy.

And there will be progressively less and less resistance to proper and effective sex education. Who's going to oppose it then?

It also means that after the Druidization of Christianity, instead of being the most despised demographics in America, atheists will be able to run for public office and expect not to be beaten on that basis alone. It means that nobody will be arguing with evolutionists or crippling America's scientific competitiveness. And people will wonder why gays were ever forbidden from marrying.

And misanthropy works against people developing a sense of self-confidence and self-worth, of autonomy and independence, and of potential. How many times have we heard it here: how dare we think otherwise. Those who see man as the designer of his own future are called arrogant, overly proud, rebellious, and having made ourselves into gods.

I don't mean that every American that holds these ideas got them in a church. But I do mean that all or almost all that didn't get them there got them from somebody who did. Had the church not impressed its values onto our forebears, those ideas wouldn't be affecting our lives today in the degree that they do.

We will all be better off when that noise is gone, too, once that church has shrunken "down to the size where we can drown off it in the bathtub," and its divisive, judgmental arbitrary, and intolerant values are replaced by rational humanist values.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#96 May 23, 2012
MODERN AMERICAN FAIL

Failing government - gridlock and feuding, no successes in ages. It's last successes may have arguably have been the bailout, but you pretty much have to go back Gulf War I and then Apollo to find successes.

Failed education system

Failing scientific competitiveness

Failed media

Failing democracy - rights, elections, candidates (the result of failing education and media)

Failing economy

Failing (vanishing) manufacturing base

Failing middle class

Failing (eroding) infrastructure

Failed War on Drugs (war on citizens)

Failed foreign policy on terrorism

Failed foreign wars

Failed intelligence (9/11)

Failed disaster management (Katrina, Gulf oil
spill, Wall street)

There's probably more. I consider the dominant culture and its values a failure, such as a disproportionate amount of religiosity, racism, homophobia, atheophobia, and antiscientism thanks to Jesus.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#97 May 28, 2012
WANNABEOLOGY

Poestaster - shitty or inferior poet
Philosophaster - shitty or inferior philosopher
Historiaster - shitty or inferior historian
Criticaster - shitty or inferior critic
Mathematicaster - shitty or inferior mathematician
Logicaster shitty or inferior logician
Medicaster shitty or inferior physician
Politicaster shitty or inferior politician
Theologaster shitty or inferior theologian
Scientaster shitty or inferior scientist
Grammaticaster shitty or inferior grammarian
Musicaster shitty or inferior musician

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#98 May 30, 2012
Charlie wrote:
Oh no, I don't pay attention to any of those theories. Conspiracy theories have one element in common; that the enemy is the very person or institution that you are closest to and most likely to trust. It seems to discount the idea of foreign enemies. Foreign enemies fomenting conspiracies is quite credible and realistic. It would be foolish to think that they weren't out to get you. But those closest to you, or your own government, out to get you is pure paranoia.
It sounds like you are saying that conspiracies about foreigners are credible, but conspiracies about Americans in power is paranoid.

There is nothing paranoid about suspecting that the American government no longer represents its citizens best interests, and is being used to work against them on behalf of corporate masters that may have seized control of it.

Even if that is incorrect, it is not an unreasonable concern or suspicion, and thus doesn't qualify as paranoia. It's reasonable.

Here's an old post of mine arguing that there is good evidence that the anthrax released in DC in 2001 came from the Bush administration. Even if it's wrong, it's a reasonable argument and asks good questions that need answering. It may be wrong, but I don't see how you can legitimately call it paranoid :

Obviously the anthrax release in Washington D.C in September 2001 was from the administration. It was in the midst of its massive power struggle immediately following 911. Who could possibly get in Cheney's way as he was preparing to suspend the Constitution with the USAPatriot Act that was obviously written before 911* That would be the media and the Senate, which was still under democratic control until after the 2002 elections. And who was targeted with this anthrax, which was later identified as an American strain developed at Ft. Detrick, MD?

from http://snipurl.com/ri57j

"The anthrax attacks came in two waves. The first postmark[ed] Sep 18, 2001, exactly one week after [911]. Five letters ...mailed to: ABC News, CBS News, NBC News and the New York Post, all located in New York City and to the National Enquirer

"Two more anthrax letters,... dated October 9 ...were addressed to two Democratic Senators,[Senate Majority leader ]Tom Daschle and [head of the Senate Judiciary Committee ] Patrick Leahy "

Why did the administration not act terrified like they did on 911 and like the exposed legislators (and Keith Olberman) did when threatened by anthrax? If there was unexplained anthrax floating around DC, why were the president and vice president not whisked away like on 911?

Why was there not more outrage from the administration as there was on 911? Why wasn't this blamed on Osama or Saddam or Al Qaeda or Clinton?

Why did there appear to be almost no effort to find the perpetrators? And why was there almost no media coverage of the event compared to the 911 coverage? Was this any less of a threat if genuine? No, if it were perpetrated by anybody other than the administration, it would represent a far greater threat to Americans.

In the end a patsy, Bruce Ivins, was blamed http://snipurl.com/ri5dn

Once the media were silenced with fear, by coincidence, just the right senators were targeted to get the fascistic and unconstitutional USA Patriot Act through Congress: the Majority leader and the Judicial Committee chair.

*The bill wasnt written by the legislative branch, Congress , but allegedly by a Vietnamese immigrant http://snipurl.com/ri4wh and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viet_D._Dinh (I doubt it, since I believe that the bill was written over months beginning well before 911, and by people close to and loyal to Cheney.

The bill was introduced to the House Oct 23, 2001 passed through 8 committees and passed by the House the NEXT DAY, October 24, by the Senate on the 25th, then signed into law by Bush on October 26th http://snipurl.com/ri514
Frasocrass Mallory

Pilot Grove, MO

#100 May 31, 2012
Carla Ladybug wrote:
I am from Kansas City and I think it should be pronounced Missouri "E" ..... saying Missouri "ah" is very country and hick sounding
I've heard "Missourah" is closer to the proper French pronunciation. It wouldn't surprise me if the widespread use of such pronunciation is actually rooted in a very established upper-class in the state having done/doing so.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#101 Jun 5, 2012

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#103 Sep 21, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Evolution has no relevancy to any discipline of science. It is worthless. That is not a jaded view. That is a realistic appraisal.
That's dissembling. This has all been covered for you already.

[1] All of medical drug testing using animal models is based on Darwin's idea that all life on earth is related by virtue of descent from a common ancestor.

[2] And of course, the idea of the development of drug resisitance in microbial pathogens is based on understanding how they evolve.

[3] Likewise with vaccines that need to be multivalent, or to be renewed each season.

[4] Many advances in agriculture and food science come from an understanding of evolution. From the University of California at Davis, a well known and highly respected veterinary and agricultural research and teaching center. From http://www.ucd.ie/graduatestudies/collegesand... :

"In addition to a broad range of postgraduate courses, all the Schools in the College of Agriculture, Food Science and Veterinary Medicine are research active and working on a range of projects that are multidisciplinary in scope and that draw upon the latest laboratory techniques and tools. The interdisciplinary nature of the research programmes make these dynamic and exciting place in which to work and study.

"Key areas of research

"Evolution & Developmental Biology (e.g. Evolutionary & Population Biology) Food & Health (e.g. Centre for Food Safety, UCD Institute of Food & Health) Immunity, Inflammation & Infection Neuroscience Sport & Health (e.g. UCD Institute for Sport & Health)"

[5] Understanding how the HIV virus evolves was used to convict a doctor of injecting a woman with the blood of one of his AIDS patients. http://evolution-101.blogspot.mx/2006/06/what...

That's plenty. Thank you, Mr. Darwin!

Now, tell us what benefit has come from your bible's version of life science - creationism, right? As far as I know, its major contribution has been to obstruct progress in stem cell research.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#104 Sep 25, 2012
Alt 248 Degree sign
Alt 250 Middle dot
Alt 241 Plus or minus
Alt 0185 Superscript 1
Alt 253 Superscript 2
Alt 0179 Superscript 3

Alt 172 One quarter
Alt 171 One half
Alt 0190 Three quarters

&#506; &#916; 234567890 &#8734; ~ &#8776; &#8800; &#8804; &#8805; &#9679; &#8730;&#9834; &#9835; &#9834; \ &#8260; /|&#8356; &#295; 畽 &#8531; &#8532; &#8539; &#8540; &#8541; &#8542; &#9788; &#8596; &#9658;&#9658; &#8593; &#8595; &#8362; &#9824; &#9827; &#9829; &#9830; &#9786;&#9787;&#96 88; &#9675; &#9792; &#9786; &#9689; &#9787;



apostrophe '
brackets (),[],{}, < >
colon :
comma ,
dashes ,, &#8213;
ellipses ,...
exclamation mark !
full stop/period .
guillemets
hyphen -
question mark ?
quotation marks ,
semicolon ;
slash/stroke /
solidus &#8260;

Word dividers
spaces &#8194; &#8195;
interpunct

GENERAL TYPOGRAPHY
ampersand &
at sign @
asterisk *
backslash \
bullet
caret ^
currency generic:
specific: &#3647;,,$,, &#8365;,, &#8358;,, &#8361;,
daggers ,
degree
inverted exclamation mark
inverted question mark
number sign/pound/hash #
numero sign &#8470;
ordinal indicator ,
percent etc.%,,
pilcrow
prime &#8242;
section sign
tilde/swung dash ~
umlaut/diaeresis
underscore/understrike _
vertical/pipe/broken bar |,

apostrophe (') brackets (()),([]), < >) colon (:) comma (,) dashes ( &#8210;,,, &#8213; ) ellipses (,...) exclamation mark (!) full stop/period (.) guillemets () hyphen (-, &#8208; ) question mark (?) quotation marks (,) semicolon ( ; ) slash/stroke (/) solidus ( &#8260; ) Word dividers spaces ()(&#8194;)(&#8195;)() (&#9248;)(&#9250;)( &#9251;) interpunct () General typography ampersand ( & ) at sign (@) asterisk (*) backslash (\) bullet () caret (^) currency generic:() specific: &#3647;,,$,, &#8370; ,&#8365;,, &#8358;,, &#8361;, &#8362; daggers (,) degree () ditto mark ( &#12291; ) inverted exclamation mark () inverted question mark () number sign/pound/hash (#) numero sign ( &#8470; ) ordinal indicator (,) percent (etc.)(%,, &#8241; ) pilcrow () prime ( &#8242; ) section sign () tilde (~) umlaut/diaeresis () underscore/understrike (_) vertical/pipe/broken bar (|,) Uncommon typography asterism ( &#8258; ) index/fist ( &#9758; ) therefore sign ( &#8756; ) because sign ( &#8757; ) interrobang ( &#8253; ) irony mark/percontation point ( &#1567; ) lozenge ( &#9674; ) reference mark ( &#8251; )

&#8800; 񮰿 &#9679; &#8776;

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#105 Oct 3, 2012
The Hebrew word Chug (&#1495;&#1493;&#1 490;) means a flat-circle like a coin as you said. The Hebrew word for a sphere like a ball is Dur (&#1491;&#1493;&#1 512;).

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#106 Oct 23, 2012
Eagle12 wrote:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Militant_atheism
Militant atheism is a term applied to atheism which is hostile towards religion. Militant atheists have a desire to propagate the doctrine, and differ from moderate atheists because they hold religion to be harmful.
So? How is that militant? You're being disingenuous and libeling us again with that word. "Militant" is one of the words that is used to frame the opposition in an extremely negative light, just like the words "angry," "radical," and "extreme." Militance is generally considered undesirable.

Is it accurate or hyperbole? Are aggressive freethinkers militant? I don't think so. Stoning people to death, burning them at the stake, impaling them in the iron maiden, and stretching and twisting their bodies until they confess Christ to their inquistors between screams of anguish is militant.

Flying airplanes full of people into buildings is militant. Assassinating abortion providers and bombing Planned Parenthood clinics is militant.

And even keying the cars, harassing the children, and cruelly sacrificing their pets of skeptics is militant.

But speaking out in protest of these things? Is that really militant? Calling these things very bad and wanting to rid the world of them - is that militant?

Is publishing best sellers like The God Delusion and God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything militant?

Is insisting that the American government respect the separation clause and remove prayer and Creationism from the classroom, and the Ten Commandments from the courtrooms militant?

Is posting billboards and ads on buses saying "Be good for goodness sake" and "Being a good person doesn't require god" militant? None of these things are militant.

No. With militance, blood is spilled. We just speak. And our words provoke nobody to commit violence or other injustices.
Eagle12 wrote:
Recently the term militant atheist has been used to describe the New Atheism movement, which is characterized by the belief that religion "should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."
You have no moral right to call anything that fits that descriprtion "militant."
https://images.nonexiste.net/popular/wp-conte...
Eagle12 wrote:
"Militant atheists, Baggini continues, "tend to make one or both of two claims that moderate atheists do not. The first is that religion is demonstrably false or nonsense, and the second is that it is usually or always harmful."
I make those claims - that your bible is demonstrably inauthentic and therefore mythology, the religion derived from it false, and the clergy fraudulent. I also claim that it is very harmful-

And I am still not militant - not as long as my only weapons are words, and my arguments do not incite others to commit injustices (hate speech).
Eagle12 wrote:
According to Baggini, the "too-zealous" militant atheism found in the Soviet Union was characterized by thinking the best way to counter religion was "by oppression and making atheism the official state credo."
Humanists deplore such ideologies.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#107 Oct 23, 2012
I say that you can't tell the difference between love and hate. Let's investigates what a Christian generally means by love.

They call their god perfectly loving, but it is angry, quick to wrath, vengeful, jealous, and often murderous, visiting us with floods, tsunamis, earthquakes and the like. And it built a hell and a Satan, and will throw you in it for being human if you don't love it.

Abusive husbands and boyfriend also say that they love their women, then hurt them. Here's a list called "Ways the Christian God is like the most extreme version of an abusive (and possibly psychotic) boyfriend." Look at how much your god resembles that. http://conversationalatheist.com/general-essa ...:

[1] Needs constant praise.
[2] Makes you feel guilty for just being human.
[3] Has severe jealousy issues.
[4] He lets painful experiences happen to you that he could easily prevent, just to test your devotion to Him.
[5] Claims credit for everything good in your life; claims nothing bad in your life comes from Him.
[6] Threatens you with eternal torture if you ever leave Him.
[7] He is constantly swearing that He loves you and you need Him.

Ways to tell if you are in danger of being taken advantage of in a relationship with this abusive God:

[8] You are highly defensive of Him from even the slightest criticism of His flaws.
[9] You talk to Him every night, and He never responds yet still expects unwavering devotion.

Christians seem to think that anything their god says or does is love, however horrible. They resolve any pangs of conscience caused by apparent contradiction by accepting that their human minds are too puny to understand what must be good if their god says so. That's god's love for man. How about man's love for god?

Robert G. Ingersoll said,Human love is generous and noble. The love of God is selfish, because man does not love God for God's sake, but for his own.

The bible confirms this: "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple." - Luke 14:26

And how about the Christian version of love of man for fellow man? What is the message of the church? It talks about love as it scapegoats gays and skeptics.

None of any of that has anything to do with love. Nor is dying on the cross. Nor is requiring a death on the cross. Love does not involve torture, bleeding, screaming, or being nailed to a board by the hands.

Love enabling, not disabling. It increases us, not make us needlessly vulnerable or dependent, nor demands sacrifices. With love, sacrifices are made freely. Love is generous and noble.

Mature love isn't a deal. It isn't a negotiation. It isn't jealous. It isn't needy. It isn't clingy. It isn't demanding or coercive. It isn't vengeful. It doesn't threaten. It just loves. A loving god would require nothing of us, like a loving grandfather of a toddler.

I do understand what love is, and that is one of the reasons I can never again be a Christian. Love is not self denial. Love is not blood and suffering. Love is not murdering your son to appease your own vanity. Love is not hatred or wrath, consigning billions of people to eternal torture because they have offended your ego or disobeyed your rules.

"Love is not obedience, conformity, or submission. It is a counterfeit love that is contingent upon authority, punishment, or reward. True love is respect and admiration, compassion and kindness, freely given by a healthy, unafraid human being. Dan Barker

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Springfield Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Springfield Three 1992 (Sep '13) 1 hr olddog 23,282
End or Reform Topic 16 hr Carnac the Magnif... 1
Social Security Office Complaints Mar 23 The Protector 1
Springfields Small Business Issue's Mar 22 Pity 1
best the tattoo shop in town? Mar 21 tattsmcgee 1
Hard as a rock lady's need your help today Mar 21 milfmaster 6
Attorney Joanna Billingsley (Oct '11) Mar 20 Beyondtiredofher 33

Springfield Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Springfield Mortgages