Creation vs. Evolution

[MichaelCadry]

Peoples taste in music, lyrics and art in general is about as subjective as it gets IMO. Hozier is pretty popular so must be doing something right.

Dear Hedshaker,

You're right! I don't like the lyrics to that song, but I've heard other stuff by Hozier and he is definitely talented and he's going to do just fine, I believe. Distinctive voice, carries a tune well, he can sing
pretty well.

I prefer the term sceptic Michael as it covers a broader spectrum.

Yes, I do like your choice of being "skeptic." This gives you a wider category of possible beliefs in God, to be honest.

I went to the Glastonbury festival of music and performing arts last month, which is kind of a big thing over here and difficult to get tickets. Anyhow, I saw Florence and the Machine and a bunch of other top named artists. It was 5 nights sleeping in a tent and it was a bit grueling but great fun and memorable.

Sounds like tons of fun!! I hope the tickets weren't too expensive! So you did some camping, eh?!! Yes, I do like Florence. She's really good and edgy, and different. Saw her on TV not long ago on The Tonight Show. I don't know if you have that show there, with host, Jimmy Fallon? No?

I took my camcorder along to get some video footage, along with some time-lapse camera work, for posterity, and I've mixed some of my music in. It hasn't turned out too bad since I didn't have a lot of time for getting my head around Vegas Pro video editing software.

It's 15 minutes and 20 seconds. Check it out:

Glastonbury Festival 2015 -The Good the Mad and the Trippy

Hey!! That's awesome. I'll be glad to check it out right now. It's still light outside here. I am in Phoenix and it is 7:35pm, MST. Okay, I'm going to be gone for 15 mins. Thanks for posting, Hedshaker!! You're a good fellow!! God Bless Your Heart!!

HEY HEDSHAKER!! I did listen to the video all the way through and it was excellent!! I couldn't make out if there was a Blue Angel girl or Blue Fairy girl. The last thing I remember seeing was the girl in long, orange hair. Quite entertaining. You must have had a blast there. Lots of music. You filmed Florence quite well and she sounded good. She reminds me a bit of Natalie Merchant {10,000 Maniacs}. I like the other bands also. So many musicians!! Wonderful. Just reminds me of modern Woodstock. Hope they had a lot of Portapotties. You take care! I hope you enjoyed yourself Tons!!

Warm Wishes And Cheerio, Mate!!

Michael

:guitar: :singer: :angel: :angel: :cloud9:
​

 

[MichaelCadry]

I'm undecided about evolution, but I'm also aware that there are more choices than Literal Genesis Creation or Evolution. There's also every chance that the Genesis account is not and was never meant to be an account of HOW everything got here, but is an exposition of (more) WHY everything is here, or of the significance that everything in creation has. Simplifying our choices and then dying on one hill or another has lead the Church into troubled waters ever since her inception.

Dear Soodanim,

I barely understand the point(s) you are trying to make. Yes, there are more choices. I guess I get it, but it is vague. Thanks for posting, pseudonym!!

With Love, In Jesus Christ!!

Michael

 

[DavisBJ]

Dear Michael,

First, once again I see that you omitted your normal salutation to me. That’s twice in row. I can take a hint, you are not-so-subtly dissing me. Oh, the agony.

Anyway, I am almost out of my normal zone of conversation with this particular exchange with you. I usually avoid discussing much theology, since it feels too much like agonizing over something that is simply fiction. What I see as your wishy-washy vacillation (between OEC and YEC camps) is dealing somewhat with age-of-the earth questions, so there is an element of science involved. But I will admit that it was your vacillation itself that captured my attention. I presume most of the Christians avoid asking the questions I am because they are willing to have you essentially on their side, warts and all.

It was a slip, of course DavisBJ.

Which you “slipped” on again in this post I am responding to.

I am not in opposition to YEC beliefs. I believe in them, you booper! You twist my words to make them advantageous to you.

Booper? BOOPER? How dare you. (I think). Since I don’t know what a booper is, I guess I better find out if I have been insulted, complimented, or what. I found a variety of things claiming some booperism, but the most complete was:

http://www.negativland.com/dumb/blog/archives/category/booper​

And even after looking at that, I haven’t decided whether to send you a thank-you card or a dried pile of bovine donated old-west campfire fuel.

Let me go back a bit and firm up a point. This will touch on some ideas we have already mentioned in earlier posts.

You say you are now in agreement with YEC beliefs. But as of Nov 12, 2011 (over 35 years after you started receiving divine visitations), in the Fifth Revision of your book, you said this:

It was additionally made very clear to me that the men and women who God created lived before our Adam and Eve, whom our Lord formed.

​

Can you tell us when this “was … made clear” to you? In other words the approximate date, and who the divine messenger was that so instructed you?

On a side note, I want to see if you would support (or not) the idea that a prime way for God to give more of his spirit to us is by giving me hiccups? I ask this because I haven’t had hiccups for years, and maybe that could help explain my lack of belief. Whatcha think?

 

[noguru]

I'm undecided about evolution, but I'm also aware that there are more choices than Literal Genesis Creation or Evolution. There's also every chance that the Genesis account is not and was never meant to be an account of HOW everything got here, but is an exposition of (more) WHY everything is here, or of the significance that everything in creation has. Simplifying our choices and then dying on one hill or another has lead the Church into troubled waters ever since her inception.

The church is like any other human association. And the statement:

"Together we stand divided we fall."

Is an accurate representation of how having a common purpose that binds a group together makes them strong and not being unified makes them weak. In theology such unified fronts are often based on wishful thinking regarding "supernatural" things, which are inherently difficult to pin down in regards to their veracity.

The founding fathers of the US were aware of this, but not to the extent that modern people are. Hence they strayed away from conspiring with any specific religion and focused on individual rights and personal freedoms as their unified front. Which was spearheaded by a deist (which was quite a different stance than most of the theists around him) named Thomas Paine. Whose ideas were the direct result of his own creative efforts framed from the previous 16 decades of Enlightenment in Europe. The founding fathers had become disillusioned by the claims of past monarchies in Europe that used "divine authority" as the cornerstone to their "justified" position in society. Paine's view resonated well with the pluralist society in the British Colonies of North America. Here is what he wrote about that in the age of reason:

I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.

The only reason I point out this history is because along with politics the area of science was also being revolutionized by these same progressing schools of thought. And the new secular forms of governments that have sprung up since the Enlightenment are simply the result of the same questioning of claims made by theological authorities. It was not the start of secular thought. But is was the start of secular thought leading the way through empirical evidence and reason. Rather than the previous order which had religious/theological thought leading the way in society. The modern form of agnostic secularism is simply the logical extension of that non denominational secularism started in the past centuries.

In modern times there are many that are not happy about this transformation and they would prefer to return to the days of yesteryear where specific religions and theology were the leading schools of thought in society.

 

[Hedshaker]

Yes, I do like your choice of being "skeptic." This gives you a wider category of possible beliefs in God, to be honest.

Actually no Michael, the exact opposite is the case. I find it kind of odd though that not all atheists are sceptics. Some lack a belief in gods but buy into things like ghosts and homoeopathy.

:think:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Let's just say I don't believe in gods generally rather than I have any specific godly disbelief.

You seem to be talking about near death experiences, the truly dead rather tend to stay dead.
Some people claim to have seen ET aliens.

Let's just agree that eternal agony is not commensurate with anything bad I may have done.

Dear alwight,

I understand that you just don't believe in gods. Yes, the truly dead rather tend to stay dead, unless God wants it otherwise. It's really hard to respond to these little snippets. I don't know how to explain it to you, Al.

Then it would take years to get to the nearest stars and then what? I hope the in-flight entertainment is good.

Nope, sorry but I can't make myself believe but I do believe that you could be wrong.

The evidence suggests that life has been evolving for billions of years, I don't see any evidence of a supernatural creation just a few years ago.

Well, what I think will happen is that it will be just as it was before I existed. It didn't bother me then and there were no worries about passing the time flying between stars.

The only thing I reject Michael is other people's fantasy versions of their gods. I would be delighted to be acquainted with any real god/creator.

Sorry but I simply don't accept that your beliefs and the Bible are historically factual and are probably mainly religious fantasy.

I really don't fear what I don't think exists Michael, believe me.
lain:

Al, I cannot answer these snippets of your answers to my prior questions, which I now cannot see. I guess that is what those box inside a box quotes help out. I would be delighted for you to be acquainted with the real God. It would be wonderful for you. I am also sorry that you are sorry that you don't accept the Bible is factual. And I know you can't fear God when you don't think He exists. Don't you worry about anything. You're an excellent person and you'll be just fine, I believe. Will chat with you again soon.

Tons Of Love Coming Your Way!!

Michael

:cloud9: :cloud9: :angel: :angel: :guitar: :singer:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Actually no Michael, the exact opposite is the case. I find it kind of odd though that not all atheists are sceptics. Some lack a belief in gods but buy into things like ghosts and homoeopathy.

:think:

Dear Hedshaker,

I see your point. Yes, I do wish that all atheists were skeptics. I noticed that you did some pretty good camerawork on your video also. How you make it go so fast, and yet the people's speech is not too fast also, because you can hear what they are saying. I can't explain it well. I barely can take pictures with the camera in my cell phone. And it's got video also, but nothing as good as a camcorder. Well congratulations to you, buddy!! Don't be a stranger!!

Cheerio, Mate!!

Michael

:angel: :angel: :guitar: :singer: :cloud9: :cloud9:
​

 

[rstrats]

6days,
re: "Sorry... Its Peter. Paul wrote about it."

I'm not aware of any scripture where Paul writes about Peter's vision. What do you have in mind?

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Michael,

First, once again I see that you omitted your normal salutation to me. That’s twice in row. I can take a hint, you are not-so-subtly dissing me. Oh, the agony.

Dear DavisBJ,

Yes, I remember now. In the second instance, I was upset with you.

Anyway, I am almost out of my normal zone of conversation with this particular exchange with you. I usually avoid discussing much theology, since it feels too much like agonizing over something that is simply fiction. What I see as your wishy-washy vacillation (between OEC and YEC camps) is dealing somewhat with age-of-the earth questions, so there is an element of science involved. But I will admit that it was your vacillation itself that captured my attention. I presume most of the Christians avoid asking the questions I am because they are willing to have you essentially on their side, warts and all.

Which you “slipped” on again in this post I am responding to.

Booper? BOOPER? How dare you. (I think). Since I don’t know what a booper is, I guess I better find out if I have been insulted, complimented, or what. I found a variety of thing claiming some booperism, but the most complete was:

http://www.negativland.com/dumb/blog/archives/category/booper​

And even after looking at that, I haven’t decided whether to send you a thank-you card or a dried pile of bovine donated old-west campfire fuel.

The term "booper" was just an affectionate word that my best friend called his little neighbor boy (lived right next door) when he made a mistake. That is when I started using the word. We called the boy 'booper' instead of his real name. It was a term of endearment. No problem.

Let me go back a bit and firm up a point. This will touch on some ideas we have already mentioned in earlier posts.

You say you are now in agreement with YEC beliefs. But as of Nov 12, 2011 (over 35 years after you started receiving divine visitations), in the Fifth Revision of your book, you said this:

It was additionally made very clear to me that the men and women who God created lived before our Adam and Eve, whom our Lord formed.

​

Can you tell us when this “was … made clear” to you? In other words the approximate date, and who the divine messenger was that so instructed you?

No, I cannot. It has been a while ago. Lots was going on in my life. My current seventh edition is what you should be reading, I would think. You can read it for FREE by going to my website address below. If you want to be given directions, let me know. My fifth edition is old news, as far as I am concerned. I guess we won't know the absolute truth of the matter until we are with God and Jesus. I can wait. It won't be that long.

On a side note, I want to see if you would support (or not) the idea that a prime way for God to give more of his spirit to us is by giving me hiccups? I ask this because I haven’t had hiccups for years, and maybe that could help explain my lack of belief. Whatcha think?

Yes, DavisBJ, that is the primary way that God adds His Spirit to a soul. I'm sorry you don't have it happen. I get some hiccups every day. It is my treat each day. Each hiccup is only a small amount of His spirit. For you to not be getting hiccups for that long is not a good sign at all. It means He's not trying to be more of a part of your life at all. I'm sorry. That could explain your lack of belief.

Okay, I'd best get going to bed. It's 4a.m. here and I have a big day 2morrow. Going to my nephew's home to jam down on my 12-string with their 6-strings, and we'll all take turns at the mic {him, his significant other, and his two daughters and me}. We're also going to work on his car. So I have a lot going on. Monday, things will get back to easier.

DavisBJ, I do not want to talk about any old things other than the seventh edition of my book for now. It's the newest information available which is why I endeavored to write the changes and additions to it. Now, you go to www.jesusreturningverysoon.com and once you are there, you will see the words on the left of the website that say "Book Copy." Left-click on those words. Then click on the words "SKU-text2.pdf." This will bring you up to the two empty pages and third Title Page. The first two pages are blank in my book, for autographs and readers notes. On the third page, you will see the Title, "What Your Eyes Have Not Seen." You can read it from your screen using your up and down arrow cursor keys. You could also download it to your computer or printer and make a copy for yourself on paper. The only measurable changes were on Chapters 1 and 9-12. That way, you could bypass reading chapters 2 through 8, if you've already read the fifth edition. Do you also know there was a sixth edition, Davis?? Anyway, the Downtown Phoenix Library has a couple of my books on their shelves since 2003. They keep getting checked out over the years. I'm thankful for that, so that they haven't pulled it from their shelves. OK, got to run.

God's Best!!

Michael
​

 

[alwight]

Al, I cannot answer these snippets of your answers to my prior questions, which I now cannot see. I guess that is what those box inside a box quotes help out.

Just open the other post in a separate window so you can easily refer to it or copy from it as you compile your one Michael. :idea:

 

[Hedshaker]

Dear Hedshaker,

I noticed that you did some pretty good camerawork on your video also. How you make it go so fast, and yet the people's speech is not too fast also, because you can hear what they are saying. I can't explain it well. I barely can take pictures with the camera in my cell phone. And it's got video also, but nothing as good as a camcorder. Well congratulations to you, buddy!! Don't be a stranger!!

Cheerio, Mate!!

Michael

It's because some of the footage was done with a digital camera in "time lapse" mode. If you have a camera with that facility, once set up, you simply point the camera then press and hold the take button. You can actually buy a device that will sync to the camera and do all of that for you. You end up with a large array of stills which you drag into your video editing software and then set the time for each still. About a third of a second works well.

It's a technique used by a lot of star gazers and great for sky filming.

Time Lapse

 

[rstrats]

MichaelCadry,
re: "Try reading Acts 10 KJV and also Act 11 KJV, and tell me what do you think."

If the dietary rules were canceled at the time of the crucifixion why do you suppose Peter, who walked with and was taught by the Messiah for 3 years and who was filled with the Holy Spirit, didn't know about it some 10 years later?

So what did Peter understand the vision to mean? Well, at first he went away wondering what it was all about. He certainly didn't understood it in a literal way, for immediately after the vision it is stated that "Peter was inwardly perplexed as to what the vision which he had seen might mean" (vs. 17) It wasn't until after the messengers from Caesarea had summoned him and he had arrived at the home of Cornelius, that Peter had realized the meaning of the vision, for he said: "You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or visit any one of another nation; but God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean "(Acts 10:28).

For Peter, the vision had absolutely nothing to do with animals or eating, but was a reference to men being declared clean before God. After this vision, we never see or hear of Peter instructing another to eat unclean animals, and neither do we see any instances of Peter doing so himself. The Bible is full of metaphors and the vision was obviously a metaphorth for its intended meaning. Think about it - if the vision had a dual purpose, and if Peter had understood it as such, I should imagine that he would have been shouting it from the rooftops since it would have increased their available food sources by a considerable margin.

 

[DavisBJ]

Dear Michael,

I see the “Dear DavisBJ” once again. I have a hard time keeping up with the hot / cold status of our relationship.

Let me respond to your paragraphs in somewhat of a reverse order:

DavisBJ, I do not want to talk about any old things other than the seventh edition of my book for now. It's the newest information available which is why I endeavored to write the changes and additions to it.

Obviously you don’t have to talk about anything that you don’t want to. But you sound just a bit like Bill Cosby in that right now. Like Bill Cosby, you need to realize your refusal to answer questions about what you did or believed in the past does not obligate others to stop asking why you had to make the changes. If you fervently held and taught ideas that you now ask we not discuss, then your devotion to the new ideas is no more credible than the ideas you now are trying to distance yourself from.

A specific case is the one I just mentioned. When I asked for details on when you got the information you now disbelieve, you brush it off with:

No, I cannot. It has been a while ago.

I presume you have kept copies of each edition of your book. You could look in those past editions to see when you first put that false doctrine in your book. As to remembering who taught you false ideas, I would think that information would be of paramount importance.

I am fairly sure I know how that false doctrine found its way into your book. During your study of Genesis chapters 1 and 2, plus ideas in the popular press telling of old fossils and such, you combined ideas from all 3 sources in a way that seemed to answer the questions you had. The explanation you came up with you then draped with some vague allusions to divine authorship. Notice you did not offer any wiggle room as to authenticity by saying the creation/extinction story was something you came up with but rather you said:

It was additionally made very clear to me…

​

If you are unwilling to forthrightly and openly acknowledge that whoever came up with that false information was bluntly in error, and show that your new belief is correct, then neither you nor your book are credible sources. Remember that in trivially dismissing teachings from Editions 5 (and 6) of your book, those fallacious teachings were presented by you to everyone who would listen as divine truth for 20 times as long as you have embraced YEC precepts.

Now, you go to www.jesusreturningverysoon.com and once you are there …

Yes, I have long since downloaded Edition 7, and compared it with edition 5.

On the hiccup question, when I asked:

Dear Michael,
…
I haven’t had hiccups for years, and maybe that could help explain my lack of belief. Whatcha think?

You responded:

Yes, DavisBJ, that is the primary way that God adds His Spirit to a soul. I'm sorry you don't have it happen. I get some hiccups every day. It is my treat each day. Each hiccup is only a small amount of His spirit. For you to not be getting hiccups for that long is not a good sign at all. It means He's not trying to be more of a part of your life at all. I'm sorry. That could explain your lack of belief.

I suspect (and hope) that that the readers assumed this is just some banter between you and I. But in fact, it is not. Let me share an exact quote that is in your current edition of your book:

You might find the following hard to believe, but this whole book has been that way, so I’ll tell you. Hiccups are the way in which God gives His Spirit to people by putting it into them, sometimes forcefully. The diaphragm spasms as this is happening, but that is not just air going into your left ear. I have found this to be true by my own experience. You’ll find out soon enough, so you don’t have to believe me now.

​

I don’t think I will do more than share that passage from your book. If anyone honestly thinks hiccups are a link to God, then there’s not much I can say to instill a shadow of common sense in them.

Michael, clearly we disagree on some important things. But, as we have shown, we can still be respectful to each other, and maintain a casual friendship. As you have stated, you will not let me walk on you, and in return, as your friend, I have an obligation to try to help you. As I have done above.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Dear Michael,

I see the “Dear DavisBJ” once again. I have a hard time keeping up with the hot / cold status of our relationship.

Let me respond to your paragraphs in somewhat of a reverse order:

Obviously you don’t have to talk about anything that you don’t want to. But you sound just a bit like Bill Cosby in that right now. Like Bill Cosby, you need to realize your refusal to answer questions about what you did or believed in the past does not obligate others to stop asking why you had to make the changes. If you fervently held and taught ideas that you now ask we not discuss, then your devotion to the new ideas is no more credible than the ideas you now are trying to distance yourself from.

Dear DavisBJ,

I'm fine with talking about it. But it is past tense. I have a seventh edition out now. I'm glad you took the time to acquire it, DavisBJ!! Where do you live? If it means that much to you, of course, I can comment on it. To be honest, DavisBJ, I cannot totally rule out the last version of what I claimed. I will only find out truly when I go be with God. If He tells me before I go to be with Him, I'll leave it here in writing. Otherwise, I have embraced the new version of my beliefs about that subject. Does that do the trick for you?

A specific case is the one I just mentioned. When I asked for details on when you got the information you now disbelieve, you brush it off with:

I presume you have kept copies of each edition of your book. You could look in those past editions to see when you first put that false doctrine in your book. As to remembering who taught you false ideas, I would think that information would be of paramount importance.

I am fairly sure I know how that false doctrine found its way into your book. During your study of Genesis chapters 1 and 2, plus ideas in the popular press telling of old fossils and such, you combined ideas from all 3 sources in a way that seemed to answer the questions you had. The explanation you came up with you then draped with some vague allusions to divine authorship. Notice you did not offer any wiggle room as to authenticity by saying the creation/extinction story was something you came up with but rather you said:

It was additionally made very clear to me…

​

If you are unwilling to forthrightly and openly acknowledge that whoever came up with that false information was bluntly in error, and show that your new belief is correct, then neither you nor your book are credible sources. Remember that in trivially dismissing teachings from Editions 5 (and 6) of your book, those fallacious teachings were presented by you to everyone who would listen as divine truth for 20 times as long as you have embraced YEC precepts.

I have copies of each edition of my book. What I used to believe in has been there since I first wrote my book, back in 1999. I still can't throw those beliefs away. Right now, I teeter on which account is true. Considering what 6days has taught me, I embraced his way of thinking because it seemed to make more sense to me. I figured perhaps I was wrong in my former belief about that certain subject. There is much more in my books besides that subject. Anyway, there is a chance that I was mistaken, just like everyone does make them at some time in their lives. I would just as soon discuss my new, updated beliefs. But if, by any chance, the Lord butts in and lets me know that what I believed before was correct, I will continue in my new beliefs. Right now, I don't have the answer I'm looking for and yes, I have asked God for clarity, but so far, it's not been forthcoming. God answers me on His conditions, not mine. You do not know God, so you wouldn't know how He works. That's the end of the matter for me, for now. I'm tired of discussing it. I have made it clear before in my last post to you and now, how I feel.

Yes, I have long since downloaded Edition 7, and compared it with edition 5.

On the hiccup question, when I asked:

You responded:

I suspect (and hope) that that the readers assumed this is just some banter between you and I. But in fact, it is not. Let me share an exact quote that is in your current edition of your book:

You might find the following hard to believe, but this whole book has been that way, so I’ll tell you. Hiccups are the way in which God gives His Spirit to people by putting it into them, sometimes forcefully. The diaphragm spasms as this is happening, but that is not just air going into your left ear. I have found this to be true by my own experience. You’ll find out soon enough, so you don’t have to believe me now.

​

I don’t think I will do more than share that passage from your book. If anyone honestly thinks hiccups are a link to God, then there’s not much I can say to instill a shadow of common sense in them.

Well see, you want to harp on old ideas of mine, as they suit you, but not about this particular idea, that you would rather discard. Believe what you wish as it suits your needs.

Michael, clearly we disagree on some important things. But, as we have shown, we can still be respectful to each other, and maintain a casual friendship. As you have stated, you will not let me walk on you, and in return, as your friend, I have an obligation to try to help you. As I have done above.

In other words, you do want to learn about my book and God, and Jesus? That sounds promising. Will chat with you later. I have answered your post before responding to others before you, which I rarely do. I will get to their posts when I get home from my business today. I'm going to see my two great nieces and jam with them and my nephew and his significant other/girlfriend.

Tal Luego!!

Michael
​

 

[alwight]

On the hiccup question,..

"Hiccups are the way in which God gives His Spirit to people by putting it into them"

When I was a youngster if I got hiccups in the morning I would be pretty sure of still having them when I went to bed, nothing seemed to stop them, none of the traditional remedies anyway.

Then one day I heard about downing a spoonful of sugar soaked in vinegar, yuck. :vomit:
In desperation one day I tried it with some trepidation, and it was revolting, but lo and behold, no hiccups, cured!

This worked well for a couple of years until I decided that I actually rather liked it...

I rarely ever get them now, except perhaps if I've over-eaten, and they don't usually last long.
God perhaps is ticking me off for gluttony? :think:

 

[noguru]

When I was a youngster if I got hiccups in the morning I would be pretty sure of still having them when I went to bed, nothing seemed to stop them, none of the traditional remedies anyway.

Then one day I heard about downing a spoonful of sugar soaked in vinegar, yuck. :vomit:
In desperation one day I tried it with some trepidation, and it was revolting, but lo and behold, no hiccups, cured!

This worked well for a couple of years until I decided that I actually rather liked it...

I rarely ever get them now, except perhaps if I've over-eaten, and they don't usually last long.
God perhaps is ticking me off for gluttony? :think:

It is what it is.

:chuckle:

Did you hear about the zebra that died and went to heaven?

He was standing in front of St Peter and he says;

"In life I was never able to figure this out. Am I white with black stripes or black with white stripes?"

St. Peter says:

"I really can't answer that, but the big guy is in the next room. Why don't you go in there and ask him?"

So the zebra goes into the next room, standing in front of God he says the same thing;

"In life I was never able to figure this out. Am I white with black stripes or black with white stripes?"

God says in a booming voice:

"You are what you are."

Now the zebra leaves that room even more confused, and as he is walking by St Peter, St Peter says;

"Did you get your answer?"

The zebra says, well I got an answer but I do not know what it means. St Peter says:

"Well what exactly did he say?"

The zebra tells him. And St. Peter says;

"Oh, that means you are white with black stripes. Because if you were black with white stripes God would have said;

"You is what you is"."

A black friend told me that joke, so I hope no one reports me for a racist post.

 

[Daniel1611]

Im not one that is "offended" by jokes or that calls everything racist. I laugh at edgy humor. But that one wasn't even funny. It was just racist. Boooo

 

[noguru]

Im not one that is "offended" by jokes or that calls everything racist. I laugh at edgy humor. But that one wasn't even funny. It was just racist. Boooo

Sorry dude. You can't please everyone.

A lot of blacks laugh at ebonics. They know how to talk correctly and they still do it with a sort of levity. I do not agree that its racist.

 

[Daniel1611]

Sorry dude. You can't please everyone.

A lot of blacks laugh at ebonics. They know how to talk correctly and they still do it with a sort of levity. I do not agree that its racist.

I will laugh at racial jokes if they are funny and not intended to be mean. This one just isn't funny. It's just racist. I dont care. I wouldn't report it as racist because I hate the PC culture we have today, but if this clown is going to make a lame, racist joke, I can comment on it.

 

[noguru]

I will laugh at racial jokes if they are funny and not intended to be mean. This one just isn't funny. It's just racist. I dont care. I wouldn't report it as racist because I hate the PC culture we have today, but if this clown is going to make a lame, racist joke, I can comment on it.

I think you are wrong.

CHANCE: Why are some people so critical of Ebonics? Now what is Ebonics? Ebonics is Black-American English or what some people call ghetto English, black slang or street English. But Ebonics didn’t come from the ghetto or streets of Black-America. Black English existed Three hundred years before the ghettos and the street life. Ebonics came from Black slaves whom had to learn English so they could communicate with their white slave Masters.

The word ebony means Black and phonics means sound, so the two words were combined and the word Ebonics was born. Ebonics means black sounds and Ebonics means black sound, symbolizing the type of English that many Black-Americans can speak.

This English is what many Black-Americans speak among themselves, just like many other people speak another language besides English inside their homes.

Also, if you go to London-England there are people who speak cockney English – and cockney English is not considered proper English by the British. When many Black-Americans go on job interviews, the overwhelming majority of them don’t start speaking Ebonics with their potential employers; they speak standard American English this is a fact.

https://chancellorfiles.wordpress.com/2005/11/08/the-origins-of-black-american-english-ebonics-and-history/