User talk:Paul.Paquette

{| border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" align="left" width="100%" style="background-color:transparent;"
 * valign=top|

{| style="background-color:transparent" border="0" cellpadding="10px" cellspacing="10px" align="center" width="100%" '''Note: I reserve the right to edit and delete irrelevant or obsolete comments/information at my discretion. I do this because I hate clutter & redundant statement, however stuff that I find relevant, and up todate, I will keep. Please keep your comments as thrift as possible, and to the point. Staments of Apology or justification for ones actions will be deleted, I do not want to hear it, all I want to hear is constructive criticism, leave yourself out of the statement. Please read the following tips before posting a comment.''' Paul.Paquette 15:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * bgcolor="#d2e7f7" style="border:solid 1px #aaa;"|
 * bgcolor="#d2e7f7" style="border:solid 1px #aaa;"|

Discussion 1
The woman you seem to of been talking to sounds like she was trying to apply the "Unequally yoked" rule of 2 Corinthians 6:14 to her situation. Typically, this is the verse most frequently cited when marriages between a Christian and a non-Christian enter conversations, and whenever I hear it come up its almost always dealing with marriage. (A quick google search on the term "Unequally Yoked" demonstrates this) Relationships like boyfriend-girlfriend get more complicated because there's a difference between love and lust, and those sort of relationships could debatably not even matter for the unequally yoked thing depending on the situation at hand. (But if this woman actually said "can never be your friend", that seems a bit of a stretch, the verse doesn't say its permanent whether you remain agnostic or not) As for friendship, the issue with that is it depends on how people take "Unequally yoked", it couldn't be just a black and white "Do not be near anyone who isn't a Christian" sort of deal, as it would be awfully hard to fulfill the Great Commission that way, and it'd just turn out ugly the moment someone wants to be a Christian and tries to go to church. But there's more than one way to be someone's friend, I personally have plenty of friends that aren't Christians, but I don't often interact with them much unless we're working on school stuff or something. (Plus, we're a really small school, I think everyone just becomes everyone else's friend by default) The question is really whether or not the woman in your situation could only be your friend if you were "yoked together" with her figuratively speaking, you might want to ask her what she considers that to mean. But, then again, she didn't cite the verse in the phrase you mention on the talk page, so I might be compleatly wrong about her reasoning. Homestarmy 19:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not know if you are a Christian or not, I can see how that might be a problem in regards to differences in marriage, but in reality it is a petty reason. Is love based on religion? If you like a person, and they like you in return - where does religion plays into this equation. In my opinion it should not be a factor, hell not even a coefficient, However I guess this might be my bit of bias on my part, but I do not see the illogic in it either. And to take the Unequally yoked as so far as friendship that is a stretch, and a hypocritical one to the very foundation of Christianity. Did not Jesus loved the non-believers as much as the believers. If that not true, I can go as far at to say that Jesus was a hypocritical bias bitch, however I do not think that is true, I think this man reported to be the son of god, loved everyone that he ever met, even the guy that nailed him to the cross, and beat him to death.  By the way I give you props you were dead on in regards to the topic of discussion and the problem that I was unaware of. I click on the following link by running google, just by chance that it the top one Unequally yoked and it said it all, thank you. Paul.Paquette 21:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * From the passage it seem that this happen more as a social control due to instituting the use of a taboo for that culture - so that no interbreeding will occur figurative speaking to corrupt what they view as there beliefs which is the thing that unified the Israelites early on. This is what formed the basic for there bonds as a society. If there beliefs are true or not that a totally different issue, and a futile and fool hardy issue to address. I guess people do not like asking taboo questions asking the Why question, and seeking a more definitive answer thus seeking the truth. All it take is to blind the leader of group of sheeps and the rest will follow; I guess this also applies to religion as well. Paul.Paquette 21:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That's just it, in today's society, the distinction between true love and lust is rather difficult to ascertain. In my experience, (and I am a Christian) people who end up in marriages with one person being Christian and the other one not often end up in trouble, but generally only when the Christian starts really being serious about their faith, it easily offends people then. But of course its not universal, some people report no problems, but then that often happens when just one person becomes a Christian and its fairly new for them. I think you should ask the woman you refer to to explain to you exactly how she's interpreting this verse, if she can come up with a real well-considered defense of her interpretation, i'd like to hear it :/. As for your second thing, don't sell this verse short, i've listened to podcasts from Christian radio shows where people often phone in and ask about this very issue, (after they've gotten married) and many times they report that its causing big problems in their relationship. Especially when children are involved, what if the Christian wants to teach them about Christianity but the other person doesn't? It gets a bit....complicated, and there's probably more problems than just that that can arise. It also often becomes even more serious because the Bible also commands us that if someone is already in this kind of relationship, they should definently not get a divorce, so clashes between religious beliefs in marriage can get real ugly fairly quickly.... Homestarmy 21:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

These are my reply with the name ommitted, at least she is willing to expand here reach for ideas and not rely on the sole advice from her grandfather and her immediate social group. Because I told her she need to get a fresh perspective from objective individuals that are not bias. I suggested the Professors at WKU in specific History, Philosphy, and Religion who are better informed, have a much educated opinion, or any preacher of her faith, but must have a doctorate, no offense those preacher that are elected but never study anything beyond the bible, are not well rounded in my opinion hopefully there are not many out there.

Her: Look! Im going to take your advice and find somethings out from some different proffesors that work here at Western. But I just wanted to say that Im sorry one more time for everything going wrong! I know that you hate me prolly pretty bad right now! But even though I want things to be a certain way between us, its just not and option.

Me: I do not hate you, I really hate repeating myself, and I understand why you can not be in a relationship with me. However I will never understand why you can not be my friend. But I am glad that you are taking my advice. And I do care for you, and wish you the best. To help with your conversation those professors. The problem that you are dealing with is called the "Uneven Yoked" and you just took it to an extreme level as to go so far as friendships. That should help alleviate trying to explain everything. Any other questions you wonder about, asked away.

Paul.Paquette 00:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, its "Unequally Yoked", but I think its such a well-known Bible topic, the people you've directed her to will probably pick up on it anyway. Not sure there's much history behind it though, and its not a very heavy philosophical topic I think, (I could be wrong of course, i've only recounted what i've heard from Christian type radio shows in the past and what I got from a quick google search) but there are plenty of pastors out there these days who have Doctrates in Divinity or something like that that she could probably talk to. When you told her about the Unequally yoked thing, did she react like you knew what she was thinking? It seems a bit weird that she didn't acknowladge it if so, honestly, i'm not sure how it would be a heavily difficult topic to understand. It's quite possible she's not thinking of this verse in 2 Corinthians at all, there's some crazy stuff out there when it comes to theology.... Homestarmy 03:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Basically she attributes a person that is a nonbeliever in a higher being period, regardless of the reason why as an Evil person, believes that he/she will go to hell, and believe it is wrong for her to associate with people that do not share her views because she say it is evil and wrong. She also state that she could not be with someone that did not share her beliefs. I am not sure if she will seek guidance or information or not, I hope she does. But some people say one thing and do another. So only time will tell. Paul.Paquette 03:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, that attitude about being near non-Christians does sound like much more of a general philosophy sounding thing than a pure application of 2 Corinthians. Well, if she does talk to some minister type people she may change her mind, if you need to know anything else, feel free to ask. There's also, of course, other people who frequent the Christianity talk page who might be able to tell you more. Homestarmy 19:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank You for all of your advice, and I will be more than happy to discuss religious issues in the future, I am glad that you took the time to educate me, and help me understand, and I admire you and respect you for that. Thank You again. Paul.Paquette 01:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion 2
My advise: You dont want to be with someone like that anyway. Clearly she is a bigot, and thus you better off without her (after telling her how stupid her thinking makes her!)Bigotry of all kinds should be challenged without apology.Giovanni33 01:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I figure god, if there is a being put me in her life, to broaden her horizons. She still feels compel to talk to me, I am not going to be a bigot to punish a bigot. Does not make sense, if she want to be my friend she be my friend. I put her in the bracket as an internet friend / acquaintance, thus I am not going to invest that much into her, unless she invest in me. But your opinion is noted, and thank you.  Paul.Paquette 01:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to say this Giovanni33, but you were right. She was only doing this in order to save face, and not feel bad about the blunt truth. Here is an excerpt form our conversation:
 * I'm sorry that I'm right, too. Its sad when we see people so warped from being the decent person they must have once been. It makes you wonder what happened. If we did not have religion, would we have as many close minded, bigots around? I always wonder. Well no matter how pretty she may be on the outside, she is truely an ugly human being where it counts most. Since she is probably young at least there is hope she will eventually mature and look back at her shameful behavior and thinking with the disgust that others do now. Anyway, you did your best, with honesty and courage, and now its time not to worry about her; she is her own worst enemy, and there is only so much you can do. Good luck.Giovanni33 10:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Date: 	        Feb 1, 2007 10:14 AM Subject: 	RE: RE: what happen to internet friend Me: If I am good enough to be on msn, but not myspace, what gives. Here an analogy for you: this is just as bad as treating a mentally retarded sibling that is disfigured (Black Sheep), that is an embarrassment to your family, and the family lock he/she up in the attic so no one will know about it, and so they do not have to deal with there problems. That is sad, that you can associate with me, and quote be an "Internet Friend." but ostracize me in regards to your other friends. I just realize that you have no tolerance for people that do not share your own faith or ideology. This is as fake, as fake gets.

I do not hate you, but I am repulse by your actions. I have been nice and considerate of you, and you treat me like a black sheep like the above mention example. You are a bigot, I do not know why I even bother to try.

Definition of bigot for you: A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own.

And yes you did lie, you say you will be and i quote an "Internet Buddy/friend" and last time I checked, Myspace is on the Internet.

If this is how you are going to act in the future, do not even associate with me.

Date: Feb 1, 2007 8:31 AM I did not lie to u i told u that we could be friend on MSN. Not on myspace! thats it! i never said myspace. as for me calling u yesterday it wont happen again. I just needed to call u but trust me it wont happen again. I dont know why you have to be so hateful!

Date: Feb 1, 2007 1:40 AM

what happen to internet friend? I guess by you not adding me to myspace, you could not even be that. Again, you lie to me. You disappoint me.

As you can tell from this discussion, she has not grown, has not change, and seriously doubt she will ever will.


 * Do you know if she's taken your advice about seeking other people's council yet? Or, better yet, if she has a Wikipedia account, some of us could talk to her. Homestarmy 21:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * She does not engage in Wikipedia, very few people out of the US population I say do, less than 2% I am willing to guess at the most. If she see other people I do not know I am not pressing it, if her conscience lend her to do that, then she might, but then again i not her keeper, and she a grown woman. She has to make her own decisions and live with them. It is really simple as that.  Paul.Paquette 22:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion 3

 * Paul, my perspective is that Jesus ate with sinners and prostitutes, and he condemned in the strongest terms those who treat fellow members of society as outcasts. Having been in a number of relationships with those who don't share my beliefs, I have always believed in the power of example and of sincere, heartfelt conversation about what my views are.  It seems a bit surprising to me that you two could become so close without either of you having knowledge of an issue that has become so important.  Jesus said "by your works you will know them" - the good people will act according to the good. That's not hard for a Christian or a non-Christian to understand.  I think that if you were in any sort of meaningful relationship, she would have to express her respect for your worldview.  Again, I come back to it, example is the best teacher.  The earliest Christians didn't win converts because they were rich and powerful and a club that treated non-Christians with contempt: they were popular because they helped the poor, showed love indiscriminately, and cared for the welfare of others.  If she truly believes that you are a good, sincere, open-minded, loving person, then she can't in good Christian conscience refuse to associate with you.  I believe that you're right in what you say about broadening her horizons.  I hope that both of you have meaningful lives in wherever your destiny leads you. Slac speak up! 03:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Mutual_fund.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Mutual_fund.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Rates of Return Example1.JPG listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rates of Return Example1.JPG, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)