Stronger now

Sent in by Stronger Now

These are the things that I was told were the most important:

1. Faith in Jesus.

2. Family bonds.

That's it.

It was drilled into me from birth. You always take care of family because they'll take care of you. You never ever stray from faith in the almighty god. He is watching out for you even when family isn't.

And I believed it.

Even when I was molested by my older brother.

I was eight. He was pushed into doing it by an even older cousin. And I still believed it. I couldn't tell on them. They were family. I couldn't betray them anymore than I could question why god let it happen. So I started to believe it was my fault. After all I could have yelled NO! and stopped them. That's the way I thought of it and the guilt was incredible. I read the bible and went to church and learned all about forgiveness. So that's what I felt I really needed to do. So I did. But the memory and unwarranted guilt never went away.

At fourteen I decided to kill myself. It was that bad for me. I almost pulled that trigger but... who would find me? I had a younger sister and if she saw such a thing...well she was family and I had to look out for her. Also, I wasn't sure god would forgive me. I acted like I had forgotten the abuse so My brother and I could live peacefully in the same house. And it was working. All I had to do was really forget and life could be so sweet again. I prayed my ass off trying to get help from god to forget. It didn't work of course, but I tried.

From the out side I seemed almost normal. After years of hiding in plain sight I could be easily forgotten by almost everyone that wasn't in my family. It was almost as good as death. But hormones did get the better of me and I had to mimic some social skills so I could get laid. I was sure god would forgive me of that.

And It worked! I had girlfriends and was having a great time from an outsiders perspective, but of course the reality was when any of the girls would try to get too close to me emotionally I had to get gone. They weren't family.

Then I met somebody who seemed to understand me without a lot of uncomfortable questions. I fell in love with her hard and fast. She felt the same so we got married. She was now family. I felt god had blessed me for my forgiveness and loyalty.

Then she started seeing that I wasn't quite right. I was never myself in a group and wanted no socializing outside of family surroundings. I was still going to church and still prayed for "forgetfulness," but it wasn't working. I also prayed for "peace in my heart" and that "calm of Christ". That wasn't working either. Why? Oh yea, I wasn't to question god.

So as my mind slipped further into a downward spiral of guilt, despair, and confusion, I my wife couldn't help but notice I was acting insane. I couldn't hide it any longer and she was at the right place at the wrong time and saw me for the nut I had turned myself into. I had to explain to her why I was nuts. I had to choose to either betray my brother or her. I chose to betray my brother. I was sure god would forgive me.

She agreed to help me find a therapist. I needed one. She also agreed to keep my secret to herself. And I slowly got hold of my mind again.

Then she told someone. It was my brothers wife. So I wondered if I had chosen correctly. Things eventually got hashed out and things got much better, for a while. Then My brother and his wife started to not want anything to do with my wife. How could this be? Wasn't she family? I felt like I was caught in the middle of a war and neither side could see how it made me feel. All through this I prayed to god for guidance.
"Lord God Show me what you want of me. Give me strength and show your loving guidance to my wife and brother and his wife. Heal our broken family Please. And let your peace be in us all."

It took a year of almost constant prayer before I almost lost my mind again. But this time I heard a still small voice. It spoke to me. It said "FUCK IT!" and it was me.

I had enough shit for one life and I can't take it another second. If Jesus and god the father were real they were going to show me now cause I'm tired of this waiting for them to do their shit. Last chance Big Daddy!

Guess what? nothing happened. Well, that answers that!

I figured that if they weren't real then I was going to have to do it on my own. So I stopped talking to my brother and moved hundreds of miles away with my wife and kids and so they wouldn't feel uncomfortable seeing each other at the grocery store.

Things are better for me now that I started to forgive myself for buying into the lies of xtanity and family. I have my family and I chose them. I still don't like to socialize and I suppose I never will. I'm okay with that. I'll probably never speak to my brother again, and I'm okay with that. My mom and sisters will miss us and I'll miss them, and I'm okay with that. I can finally start to be okay.

I'm stronger now, and that's the point.

To monitor comments posted to this topic, use .


«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 230 of 230
boomSLANG said...

Buddy Ferris: I have similar questions from having spent time at the bedside of a dying child. I don't have enough of an answer to take the pain away.

NOR do you have enough of an answer to convince people, namely the former Christians on this site, that your subjective beliefs, which are based in part on your subjective experiences, are valid beyond your own MIND; that Christianity is a Universal Truth, and all other religionists are deceived.

In fact, Buddy, you haven't scratched the surface. On the other hand, if you're "not trying" to convince us(as I expect you will claim), then forgive me, but I fail to see the point in why you continue to loiter here. In fact, the more you disclose about your "faith healers" and "medium" friends, the more I'm inclined to lump you in with the rest of devout supermarket Tabloidists.

BTW, have you seen "Batboy" lately?...he's turning into a fine young bat...oops, I mean "boy".

Buddy, if your "God" exists, as you insist, and this "God" of yours is an ALL-benevolent, ALL-loving, ALL-powerful being; a "God" who can muster up enough concern to restore the "faith" of a poor ol' keep her "pluckin'".... yet, this same being is too UNconcerned to do anything about the THOUSANDS of children in third-world countries who starve to death daily, and the ones who don't, live in conditions that would make the "poor" ol' lady's house seem like Donald Trump's penthouse, then that cognitive dissonance is your problem, friend. Nonetheless, I wouldn't worship any being with such despicable reasoning skills, even if "He" existed.


Buddy Ferris: Do you suggest that an inspired narrative must be written in the language of every subsequent age?

Buddy Ferris, is your creator god "omniscient"? Is your creator god "perfect"? If so, then YES, I DO suggest that such a being would "figure out" that his "creation" would advance through the ages, and thus, the "narrative" should correspond with what this alleged "omniscient" being knows his creation will eventually discover...for instance, that the earth isn't geocentric.

If you leave a child in your will, do you run out and get a box of Crayolas and draw pictures of what they'll inherit? Or do you have the foresight to see that your child will one day become an adult?? Same applies where "God" and his "will" is concerned, except, "God" is presumably light-years smarter than you.(it doesn't appear so, however)

Buddy Ferris: firmament: Middle English, no modern usage, described variously the heavens, the sky, an expanse, a support structure.

Hey, I like the multiple choice. Unfortunately, the Genesis "narrative" clearly describes a 'support' of some kind...i.e..something that "divides the waters from the waters". 'Got any clues? Could it be that in Bronze-aged man's ignorance, they thought that since the ocean(water) was "blue"(which it isn't), and since the sky was "blue" too(which it isn't) that the sky, too, was "water" then there MUST be something(a "firmament") holding up the "sky"(water)? IMO, that seems highly likely. In any event, this isn't a case where the language "changed"'s a case where they thought something existed that did not...i.e.. "unicorns".

God's timeless knowledge? his "unchanging" word? Or ignorant men playing guessing games? I say the latter.

eel_shepherd said...

"...And just what IS the function of a "firmament"?..."

I b'lieve it's a type of Viagra.

Anonymous said...

Dear boomslang,
Quick note from Africa; connection sketchy; thread seems quiet in my absence; hope you're well.

Interestingly, your allusion to a legacy is useful. Your children are the recipients, but the administration and explanation are left to specialists. Understanding by the children is offered from the real of the specialist but not from the realm of other children.

No whales available; dorado isn't bad. Catholic legacy from the Portuguese precludes Arabic-speaking snakes. Available: one goat, several skinny dogs, many fine folks I would love to bring home (the people, not the animals).


boomSLANG said...

Buddy Ferris: Interestingly, your allusion to a legacy is useful.

Uninterestingly, you either missed, or intentionally circumvented the point of my "will" analogy, which was to illustrate that an omniscient and omnipotent being would surely have the wherewithal to communicate it's alleged eternal wisdom to coincide with what it knows, in advance, that future generations would eventually discover on their own...i.e..heliocentrism, as opposed to geocentrism.

In any event, the whole point of a "will" is to plan into the future---something biblegod is apparently incapable of doing(at least accurately). Moreover, even a will can be revised or amended if need be. So??? So why hasn't biblegod(who can do any "thing" it wants; any time it wants) simply subcontracted some modern day prophets to "update" all the heinous scientific errors? Wouldn't it be because the "Word of God" is presumably "unchanging"? It seems biblegod would be in somewhat of a pickle. If it's "Word" is "unchanging", then the information needs to be true and accurate the first time. Um, it's not. However, biblegod could easliy solve this problem and subcontract some modern-day fisherman to "update" it, and then, ironically, it would kill two birds with one stone---biblegod could "appear", just like it allegedly did to the "500" and the "12"...AND, then we could do away with such notions as a "firmament", a young earth, a geocentric earth, magic, talking snakes, distant healing, know, all that silly stuff.

Buddy?..your belief dead-ends at "I believe". Sorry, charley.

Bring me back a swimming may even find the original.

Anonymous said...

Bring me back Ann Jeh Lina Joe lee!

I believe a little bit of that child of God, would make me a believer in an intelligent designer.

Leave Brad there.
Dan, Agnostic

Buddy Ferris said...

Dear Boomslang,
With you, I've wondered from time to time about the relevance and validity of the 'will'. I've tried to understand the document in terms of it's intent. There's history, but it isn't written as just history; there's prophecy, but prophecy isn't central; the theme follows a group of people and says little if anything about so many others. Rhetorical questions: What's the intent. How is it conveyed.

For intent; well, I don't think it's offered as proof of anything, but more for a limited explanation of some things, for correcting some bad thinking, and for providing some encouragement and guidance to those who are so inclined.

For conveyance; a portion says of itself that it came from visions and dreams; the writers were shown things which they subsequently describe. A description given under such circumstances would be in the language of the observer, like Is.6.1, or much of the text of the last book. Our understanding of the content would need to include that awareness.

It serves me well; it's of little use to you.

Unfortunately, I found no ax head; probably couldn't have gotten through security with it anyway; I did buy wood carvings and beads from local craftsmen. If you can get me a safe address (PO Box?), I'll send you yours.


webmdave said...


You are becoming overwhelmingly annoying. Please move on with your life and find another website to troll.


boomSLANG said...

Buddy Ferris: It serves me well;

Yes, I'm sure it does---just like the Book of Moron serves the Latter Day Saint "well"; just like the Holy Qur'an serves the Muslim "well", and just like Dianetics serves the Scientologist "well". No astonishing disclosure there.

Buddy Ferris: it's of little use to you.

Of use? What would be of use to me, and to this discussion, is some %$#@ing objective evidence for a change. Specifically, evidence that unequivocately substantiates one particular sect of Christianity(yours) as thee 100% Universal Truth, while showing that all other derivatives---along with all other opposing religions---are all deceived.

If you don't have this type of evidence; if your "biggest gun" is the personal testimony and/or anecdotal evidence that you've been bludgeoning us with, then sadly..::sniff::..I would have to second the Webmaster's sentiments.

Best regards.

Buddy Ferris said...

Dear Boomslang,

Regarding exclusivity, no such proof exists, of course. Fringe extremists claiming both Christianity and exclusive ownership of truth have muddied the conversational waters, but they represent only a small population.

My favorite oddball group was the two seed in the spirit, predestinarian Baptists. Their doctrine was narrowed down to being destined for heaven or hell without option or choice in the matter. There were only a few hundred of them in the 60's; they didn't evangelize because they believed it wouldn't change anything; they may be gone by now.

If you're tired of conversation with someone who doesn't think like you, I'm OK with that. I'm disappointed to lose the connection. My life gives me such opportunity only rarely.

Thanks for the hours,

webmdave said...

Buddy, you and Marc -- the fanatical, mystical Catholic -- look nearly identical from here. You are both absolutely convinced that your separate versions of magic are real, but are equally sure that each other's versions of magic are nonsense. This conversation isn't about "thinking" differently, this is about you peddling magical and mystical delusions. There is no "thinking" when it comes to swallowing the lunacy that attempts to pass for reason within religion. It's about delusional faith, not reasonable thought.

Buddy, it's like this: You've had your say, refused to directly answer pointed questions, failed to provide anything along the lines of evidence except a non-verifiable and strikingly un-detailed account of an emotional personal hallucination sprinkled lightly with a smattering of worthless subjective, arm-chair philosophizing.

Your intent and purpose is clear. You are here to evangelize for your religion by "giving the poor wretches some food for thought out of the vast wealth of my personal 'experience.'"

Why pretend to be here for anything else? Why not just be honest? Is that so difficult?

boomSLANG said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
boomSLANG said...

Buddy Ferris: If you're tired of conversation with someone who doesn't think like you, I'm OK with that.

Again, the Webmaster beats me to the punch.

Okay, replace the word "think" with the word "believe", and your statement would show a little more accuracy, although, technically, this isn't about "belief" VS "belief"; it's about "belief" VS non-belief. Do I need to go over this part again? Nah.

Buddy Ferris, I hold a position of neutrality; I'm merely waiting on the evidence that your personal belief is valid. Moreover, another difference between us, is that I can state, unequivocately, dozens of senarios that would falsify my non-belief. And in any, or all of those cases, I would renounce my Atheism.

Here's just a few:

1) If distant healing(prayer) re-grew an amputee's limb, and it was videographed and aired on a reputable news program such as CNN, Dateline, 20/20, or something of the like, along with commentaries from reputable MDs.

2) If the next fully-booked commercial 747 that crashes has 0 % fatalities, and it had at least one Theist on board who admitted to praying at the first sign that the plane was going to crash.(and I don't mean a runway accident, either)

3) If I were to ever witness any type of reptile speaking the human language(preferably, English or I won't be fooled by those mumbling reptiles)

Now, can you do the same? Can you list two or three events/situations, that if they happened, would falsify Theism as you believe it? I'll bet not.

Anonymous said...

Buddy -

The webmaster is right: you are not being rational. I don't mean to hijack this thread, but I wasn't able to respond in the other thread to your spurious attempt to "disprove" the theory of evolution. You can't cherry-pick one sentence out of one journal article and declare that it proves evolution is too improbable to occur, when the organism the article was talking about has evolved right before our eyes. If you have to deny reality in order to support your religious beliefs you really need to stop and reconsider those beliefs.

Anonymous said...

I think what buddy is saying is that most of his usual acquaintances (His Christian friends) have the same boring, dead end, opinions, and are very limited in their ability to say anything original, because once they answer all of the difficult questions with "God did it, and I believe it", because the bible says so, enough times, the Christian cult owns their brains, and all they have left to do in life is die, other than prostelatizing to other gullible people as they try to infect them with the virus.

Buddy finds it refreshing to come across a lot of people who are not afraid of monster, Bible God, and his sidekick satin. People whom he suspects are living good productive lives without wasting one moment talking to an invisible deity, and seem to have been able to call the bullshit contained in a very poorly written collection of Myths, and questionable stories, BULLSHIT!

Buddy has a way with words, and I bet he is somewhat of a legend among his Christian friends, for being the guy who always has the answers, but buddy finds it too easy to double talk them, and is bored.

Now he is confronted with people here on ExChristian whose ability for critical thought confound him. The evasive answers don't work with them. The cherry picking of avenues for discourse irritate them. They demand real answers to their questions and refuse to be ignored and have their questions derailed by a "Buddyism"

Buddy has found real thinking people here on Ex Christian, and doesn't want to leave. He likes us, and God help him if he ever opens the door to reality, for he will never get it closed again.
Dan, Agnostic

Buddy Ferris said...

Dear alanh,
At your request, I provided the citation for a point made previously. Others on the same subject are available.

The malarial parasite has variated, but is basically unchanged through perhaps 10,000 years and through more reproductions than there have been anthropoidal individuals. Over that period, the parasite has variated about as far as the beagle is from the basset hound; that is to say, relatively unchanged. While adaptation is obvious, like a long coat on a northern dog, it is still the same parasite. Nothing new, just a variation.

While this discussion is of interest regarding the underpinnings of evolutionary science, specifically common descent, random mutation, and natural selection, you'll note the reception the subject received here. Neither rational nor objective response surfaced, but a moderate emotional outburst instead.

That's been the case with a few of the subjects I've approached here. Without intending to pick a fight, I seem to have scratched the scab off some old wounds.

Some have asked why I continue to post here. I had hoped to exchange thoughts with reasonable folks who had come to conclusions unlike my own. My early days overseas were a pleasure; different people, cultures, traditions and beliefs. I thought to continue the process here, perhaps to mutual benefit.


boomSLANG said...

Buddy Ferris: I had hoped to exchange thoughts with reasonable folks who had come to conclusions unlike my own.

Really? Okay then, concerning the theory, and scientifically accepted fact of Evolution, just what is your "conclusion"? Are you telling me that we should expect the fact that this particular "parasite" hasn't "variated" enough(in the time that Buddy Ferris has allotted it) to NOT crescendo into "GOD DID IT" at some point? Be honest, Buddy Ferris....isn't that precisely where this is going? Yahweh "created" this "parasite" you speak of, didn't "He"? And what....two or seven "kinds" hitched a ride on Captain Noah's ark?....right long with the dinos and the rest of God's creatures? Tell me that's NOT where this is ultimately going, Buddy.

In fact, it's obvious what's going on---you've been thoroughly unconvincing with your personal testimony and anecdotal 'campfire stories', so now, in true apologetic fashion, you will proceed to try and knock "holes" in the theory of Evolution, but in the hopes of what?...making "magic" true, by default?

You know, I will concede that you have somewhat of a better grasp of the English language than most of the fundies who stumble in here, but your tactics are every bit as unconvincing and predictable.

Notwithstanding, if scientists are "wrong" about abiogenesis and Evolution, I'd like to know what theory you have that is more plausible. Listening.

webmdave said...

Buddy, you are only kidding yourself. You have no illusions about exchanging a GOD DAMNED THING. You are here to proselytize and not anything else.

Why is it so difficult for Christians to be authentically honest?


Anonymous said...

Buddy: "Some have asked why I continue to post here. I had hoped to exchange thoughts with reasonable folks who had come to conclusions unlike my own. My early days overseas were a pleasure; different people, cultures, traditions and beliefs. I thought to continue the process here, perhaps to mutual benefit."

I am not seeing the mutual benefit. I have yet to read, one iota of information from you Buddy that can be accepted as valid or reliable. Albeit, you have now resolved to posting other people's comments on biology.

Great Buddy, now, for my benefit, in this mutual exchange of information, can you tell me how "you" validated the information you have posted? If you haven't, and if you can't at least give the process by which to validate the information, then you are asking "others" to do "your" homework.

I have yet to see a thesis statement that you are attempting to support using the "example" from "someone else's" work.

Is it the thesis statement, on how "reasonable" it is to accept "randomness" in life or in the Universe? I recall your previous post on another thread;

Buddy: "The point on the floor for discussion is the reasonableness of expecting randomness (the statistical model applies) to account for the changes we see."

Buddy, you have failed to provide "which" statistical model will be used. Yet, you continue to yap as though you know what you are talking about.

Random: "1. proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern"

Buddy, if you care to discount that statement, then do so. If not, it stands as a "fact" that you have accepted by default, even if by your ignorance.

Certainty #1 - Everything is connected and relational in our reality.

Certainty #2 - If everything is relational, then obviously, everything can be traced in pattern.

Certainty #3 - If everything is relational, then... obviously, it is "fully" part of a deterministic system.

Certainty #4 - If everything is of a patterned Universe, even if we only know the piece in our lives (which is ultimate Truth as far as we're concerned), and deterministic... there is "no" randomness - period.

Randomness, is only an illusion to the ignorance of a human's capacity to "know" all variables within a segment of time. When a magician says, pull a card at random, or in probability theory, it is "random" to the individual who does not "hold" knowledge of their choices, basically, randomness based on ignorance.

"Ignorance", gives way to the illusion of both "mystery", and even "randomness".

Certainty #5 - The Universe does not Exist in "conflict", therefore, it must exist in perfect harmony. A system that is non-conflicted, and totally "relational", is best studied using tools of expression that are non-conflicted and offer the greatest opportunity for "relational" expression - mathematics.

Up to this point Buddy, you have not provided any "example" to the certainties described so far.

Therefore; your angel is a mystery out of your personal ignorance; oh, and my personal ignorance as well. I must count myself as part of the ignorance crowd, because you have "yet" to provide anything reliable. Albeit, I just ignored your comment, until you have something "reliable" to say on the matter. I will not blindly accept your ignorance on the topic, to sway any decision I will ever make... thanks, but... no thanks.

Again, your ignorance of the missing links within Reality, doesn't qualify as the supporting illusion of "randomness", nor the derivative mysteries that "manifest" from your ignorance.

The gaps that exist in your knowledge base, can either be filled with reliable information, based on testing or rational expression, or... with an "imagined" (personafied) meaning.

You and your angel experience Buddy, are the epitome of filling the gaps with irrational information, that is "information" that has no reliability. Reliability being that which can be validated, something that you have "zero" evidence to support.

Buddy, you make one post, regarding bio-evolution and a particular organism, and there are over ten million animal species on the floor of the ocean alone undergoing change, and in their becoming, they "affect" and influence the changes that occur to other life forms direction - ecology is the study of those relationships.

Your quest for a "statistical" search for an economic theory on randomness, falls flat on its face with a "sample size" of "one" subject.

Buddy, you annoy me, because, you "fail" to respond to questions, or to exploit a statement you believe to be erroneous, based on a well reasoned response.

There has been no "exchange" of knowledge with you, you have failed to express your experience with any reliability... and now, you are posting other people's research, at least once removed from your own experience... on a faulty statistical foundation.

Buddy, you are a failure in the process of knowledge exchange here. Anyone, who requires knowledge that is reliable and valid, can not "accept" anything you say, because they will have to do so in conflict with other knowledge they hold that is reliable.

Buddy, you have failed... at providing anything reliable.

Your mystery angel experience = unreliable and non-random. To you, a mystery, to everyone else, an unreliable story, where "you" have become the mystery object.

Your mystery miracle preacher = unreliable, and non-random. To you, a mystery, to everyone else, an unreliable story, where "you" and the preacher have become the object of mystery.

Your "biological" example to search the reasonability of randomness = You proffered a single example; out of potential billions in order to establish nothing short of indeterminism. That is, it may be reasonable to accept other levels of randomness and indeterminism (Platonic Reality, Transcendental Duality, etc.) if you can show a single example where there are "gaps" in knowledge on any level of scientific research.

Buddy, no matter how ignorant I am in any field of knowledge you put out there; my ignorance will "never" establish, randomness or indeterminism. Neither randomness or indeterminism can exist, if "I" make a link to a "knowledge" thereto.

Again, Buddy, if you can't resolve anything I have typed, or anything anyone else has challenged you with; it is generally accepted; you had no answer, e.g., ignorance.

And, Buddy, the correlation goes... the greater the ignorance, the greater the mystery of reality, which can provide a thrilling adrenaline/epinehprine rush (addictive)... with the obvious con that such a person fall prey to predators, who will use them for their purposes. Basically, a tool for malcontent.

Buddy, your words and the examples you have posted, smack of someone being both ignorant, and a tool... but there is the off-chance you could be either totally ignorant, or... the predator, one who is seeking to impose obscurity into the minds of others, in order to leverage a position of knoweldge based power for their own gain(s).

No matter how I read your posts Buddy, you always come out unreliable, and seeking to impose obscurity - that's dishonest, but... perhaps, that is just who you are Buddy.

TheJaytheist said...

To buddy,

O.k. you little sonofabitch, I'll stop the silent treatment just because I'm sick of the bullshit!

You ignore my experience(one I espoused on the Dear Believer thred and this one) because, to your thinking, it is non-typical, yet you continue to push your experience as typical, giving no good reason why.

So, if no other persons experience matters to you, why should YOUR experiences matter to us?

I may not be the most educated person on this site, but I know bullshit when I see it. So, don't think I ignored you because I was not up to par. I think I can convey my thoughts just fine, given my lack of education.

So you think you saw an angel.

Whippidy doo!

I thought I saw a poodytat!

No rational person gives a shit what you think you saw. Hell, a lot of people have "seen" little green aliens with anal probes.

1) What makes what you saw more real?

2) If something made life on earth, What makes you so fucking sure it was the bible god what done it?

3) How could an undereducated moron like me see through the pretentious verbiage so quickly, and get to what you really came here for: to disreguard our rationale thus (somehow) making your rationale true?

It's mental masterbation bud. You came here to nullify what is real based on what you hope is real.

You are not looking for answers, you already think you have them. You just want to push your views onto others in hopes of solidifying(sp) your preconceptions.

Untill you can conceive of other peoples views/experiences as having merit, you will never be wrong in your mind.

So have at it buddy! You have every right to think that you are right.(this comeing from an addmitted nutjob) But don't try to tell me I'm wrong just because I can't see a magical, wonderous, mysterious, fantabulous, illusion.

LSD makes you see wonderous things.
Are they real?

Do the visions of muslim men make their religion real?

How about buhddists(sp?), Is what they see real?

So what makes your visions the MACK DADDY of all visions?

Untill you can differentiate between what you THINK is real and what actually IS real, I don't see any reason for you to continue your argument.

"He thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists He sees the ghosts."

Buddy Ferris said...

Dear Boomslang,
Thanks for the moderately toned response in the midst of what seems to be a bit of a firestorm that I've unwittingly provoked.

I've come to appreciate your occasional willingness to exchange ideas. Perhaps we will, if I can extricate myself from this quagmire. I seem to have attracted the animosity of everyone except the pope.


webmdave said...

And as usual, Buddy, you've refused to address any of the salient questions posed to you.

The "thanks for the moderately toned response" comment, coupled with your ignoring those who you JUDGE as too harsh, is quite rude. Just honestly admit you are here to proselytize and everyone can continue. What is so difficult about being straight up about your intentions? Why try to mask it using apologetic subterfuge?

Can anyone say disingenuous?

Buddy Ferris said...

Dear Stronger Now,

Thanks for the direct if harshly worded reproof. Forgive me for appearing to ignore your experience; I was deeply moved by your account as were many others. I inappropriately wandered away to other subjects. I'm still relatively new to the blog realm, and lack manners.

I have only indirect experience with the things you've been forced to handle, and am familiar with the deeply rooted pain; I don't know that I'd have done as well in your place. I was fairly explosive in my younger days and would likely have made a more violent mess of things.

I stopped on your thread because your story had more honesty and clarity than I expected. I apologize for wandering off track.

If I can figure out how to take this brouhaha elsewhere, I'll do so. Instructions available?


Buddy Ferris said...

Dear Webmaster (& Dave8),
I have no intent to ignore questions offered in dialog; I'm a bit overwhelmed by the quantity at the moment.

I felt obliged to respond to the two today out of good manners; I'll try to respond appropriately to the rest later on.

As a technicality, since I'm such a target of opportunity, what is the appropriate way to orchestrate the discussion without abusing the threads started on other subjects? Suggestions?


webmdave said...

I'd suggest joining and posting in the forums. CLICK HERE. The forums are better able to handle the type of long winded discussions you are attempting.

Now, when are you going to come clean and admit that your motivation in posting here is to strictly to proselytize? Hmm?

Anonymous said...

.:webmaster:. wrote:
".......Now, when are you going to come clean and admit that your motivation in posting here is to strictly to proselytize? Hmm?......"

If he could bring himself to control the convoluted verbiage long enough, he could always submit a testimony called "The real reason I find, so interesting"

Anonymous said...


You (or perhaps someone at the Discovery Institute) quote-mined this sentence out of an article by N. J. White in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, which discusses drug resistance in the malarial parasite Plasmodium falciparum:

"This suggests that the per-parasite probability of developing resistance de novo is on the order of 1 in 10^20 parasite multiplications."

You used this sentence to declare that the entire theory of evolution is too improbable and not "reasonable." You conveniently ignored the author's discussion of why this one specific organism has difficulty developing resistance to one specific chemical, and that there can be as many as 10^12 of these parasites living in a single human host. You also missed the fact that Plasmodium falciparum has already become resistant to chloroquine, first noted in East Africa in 1979 according to the World Health Organization.

Trying to weasel out of this by falling back on the old argument that no one has seen a cat turn into a dog isn't going to work, nor is complaining about the tone of the discussion. If you can't admit an error then we have to assume that your religious beliefs are preventing you from doing do, and if that is the case, what good are they?

boomSLANG said...

Pardon me, but I'd like to interupt this discussion, briefly.

Stronger Now said: I tought I thaw a poodytat![paraphrased]

OMG!...f$#@ing pRiCeless! lol!

Buddy Ferris said...

Dear alanh,
You might look before you leap, pal.

Quote mining? My interest in malarial resistance to modern medications is personal. You may have missed in recent posts that I work and have friends in Africa where malaria still kills thousands of children each year.

I'm aware of the article's context and content; my use is consistent with both. The citation supports my generalization regarding the number of replications required to achieve significant change by random mutation/variation. That is specifically the point addressed.

It is precisely the parasite's resistance to chloroquine that is troublesome; it has occurred spontaneously several times in the last 50 years. The mechanics of that resistance are simplistic, although impressive, adaptations that amount to less change than beagle to basset. It's still the same parasite. The disappointing news is that resistance to several more effective drugs has occurred rapidly due to a simpler mechanism.

Don't dismiss the numbers in such a cavalier manner;
10^12 = the number of parasites in one infected host
10^20 = the number of parasite replications required to stumble upon chloroquine resistance
10^30 = the total number of bacterial cell replications on earth in a given year
10^40 = the total number of bacterial cells produced in the history of the planet; also the total number of bacterial replications required to produce any two sequential changes of a similar complexity to chloroquine resistance.
The number of changes required for the transition from single cell to multi-cell - perhaps hundreds to thousands.
The number of changes required for the transition from non-differentiated multi-cell to cellular differentiation in type and function - perhaps thousands to tens of thousands.
Moving on to the distinguishable variations in body part function... the cumulative requirement exceeds the total number of living organisms in the history of life on earth by several orders of magnitude.

You can see the math problem that begins to emerge. The sample set of life is too small to have arrived at an early amphibian stage, if current science tells us correctly how it happened. It's a bit naive to suggest the problem posed is a trivial one.

In deference to Stronger Now who began this thread and at the webmaster's suggestion, I've opened a new topic in the lion's den called 'life, the universe, and everything' for this discussion.


Buddy Ferris said...

Dear Webmaster,

In so far as I'm able to discern my own motives, I'm not an evangelist. I don't think I've personally persuaded anyone to the faith (or from it for that matter) in the last 50 years. I don't think things actually work that way.

Per your suggestion, I've joined and opened a new topic in the lion's den. Life, the universe, and everything (if you'll pardon the plagiarism) seemed an appropriate beginning. Thanks.


webmdave said...

Buddy's new Forum topic can be commented on by clicking here.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 230 of 230   Newer› Newest»

Archived Testimonial Pageviews the past 30 days