DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> The Terri Shiavo Controversy
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 501 - 525 of 578, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 03/30/2005 01:45:55 AM · #501
I think they have her on IV. Her father claimed she was on a morphine drip but her husband said she was only given morphine in small doses several times. For her father to have been under that impression, unless he was just outright lying, there would have had to have been an IV going.
03/30/2005 05:30:28 AM · #502
I just heard a Federal Appeals court in Alanata has decided to review the file. Are these people insane? Why don't they let her go in peace instead of trying to put her through all of this again?
 03/30/2005 06:15:49 AM · #503
Originally posted by cbeller:
Wouldn't that fall under the same TOS section 4.2?

(vi) is designed to or does harass, threaten, defame or abuse others, or maybe even the "catch all" (ix) is generally offensive or in bad taste.

You can shoe horn many users posts into being in violation of the site TOS. I hope the SC is going to be consistent when determining if a certain user's posts are in violation or not.

*Note - Not picking on you Terry, you just happen to be the one responding. ;)


This was discussed, and after reviewing his posts we did not feel there was a pattern of behavior which rose to that level. There is no precedent for using 4.2(vi) to address attacks on political parties or political leanings, and if we were to do so would represent a shift in policy of the site. If we were to make such a shift there are plenty of people on this thread who would be in violation -- you just happen to notice Ron since his views directly oppose your own. We typically have used 4.2(vi) and 4.2(ix) to deal with people who continually make personal attacks, but I have only seen one user make a personal attack in this thread. That post was removed and the user officially warned.

If you have concerns about a specific user's behavior, please feel free to contact me or any other member of Site Council off-board, either via PM or the site's Report Post feature. This thread has been mostly a civil and constructive debate, and I do not wish to divert it into a meta-discussion of site policy enforcement.

-Terry
 03/30/2005 08:15:00 AM · #504
.

Message edited by author 2005-08-23 08:10:12.
 03/30/2005 08:34:02 AM · #505
I grew up in a religious country. I went to church. I grew up. Who says 'ignorence is bliss, knowledge pain'? How many versions of the holy bible are there? How many claims mistakes in every new or old translation? Does the king james version really have in access of 26,000 known translation errors? How many so called christian churches? How many claim god is theirs only? How many hear god's voice, as president Bush does? How little tolerance? How little understanding and or respect? And how does one react to the fact that so called christianity is different from culture to culture? How many of you realise that the same so called church, in different countries and cultures, differ as day and night.
The question of this day may be read in my statement... THE CHURCH IS A MONEY MAKING RACKET. Preying on the masses of innocent, gullable people, promising them what?

Oh, and Terry.... may she be allowed to take a break from this shitty condition called life. How I envy her. May whoever is god at that time never allow me to have that so called quality of life.

And for the record, I believe. I am a believer. That does not make me blind for the reality of fraud and crazyness of this world.
 03/30/2005 08:52:01 AM · #506
I really don't have the time to read this whole thread as it has become unreasonably long. I will put in my two cents. I think the best thing is to let her husband decide. She married him. If I was this way I would want my wife to decide. It has been 15 years. Obviously she won't get better. I think the best thing to do is to let it take its course and go on with life. I know if I was in the same state she is in then I would not want to be that way for 15 years. This is why I also need a living will. Told my wife last night that if I ever got that way just let me go. It is, in my mind just not worth holding onto and living that way. I would much rather go to a better place. With that said I will leave it alone......................
 03/30/2005 09:27:12 AM · #507
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
What about my last question? How has your freedom to practice your religion been abridged?

Sorry for the delay in responding, but I do, from time to time, spend some time with my family. I hope you understand.
I will respond to your question, but first I must point out that I did not say that my freedom to practice my religion had been abridged. What I said was that my ability to practice my beliefs had been impaired by the imposition of the beliefs of others. That being said here is but one example of how that has occurred:
I was an elder in a small congregation that had no church building. We had a long-standing agreement to rent some rooms at a town-owned community center each Sunday morning for three hours to hold our services. We were also permitted to put up a sandwich-board style sign at the side of the street in front of the hall during those hours. Apparently someone complained about the "separation of church and state" because we were informed one day that we had two-months to make other arrangements - the town could no longer rent us the facility. I'm sure that we could have sued, since other organizations that met regularly at the hall were not so impacted. Not wishing to do so, however, we sought other accomodations - and were successful. We made arrangements with the Superintendant of Schools to rent the auditorium and cafeteria at a nearby elementary school on Sunday mornings. Well, needless to say, that accomodation only lasted a couple of months. Once the town fathers found out about it, that agreement was also voided. We ended up finding other accomodations at a nearby Christian school.
So, even though BOTH actions by the town were illegal, we were still "impaired" in the ability to practice our beliefs, because of the imposition of the ( erroneous ) beliefs of others.

Message edited by author 2005-03-30 09:29:03.
 03/30/2005 09:39:56 AM · #508
I sense a lot of bitterness in your post, and if it is was caused by people who call themselves Christian then that is a shame. I guess I will try and answer some of your questions even though they seem rhetorical.

Originally posted by gibun:
Who says 'ignorence is bliss, knowledge pain'?

Well...
Ecclesiastes 1:18 (New American Standard Bible)
18Because in much wisdom there is much grief, and increasing knowledge results in increasing pain.

Originally posted by gibun:
How many versions of the holy bible are there?

A lot of differing translations ( I don't know if I would call them "versions").
The most important thing is to do your homework on what translation will make studying the Bible enjoyable for you. I prefer as close to word-for-word as possible thus I use either an interlinear Bible or the NASB.

Originally posted by gibun:
How many claims mistakes in every new or old translation?

I'm sure there are some however it is generally acknowledged that the mistakes in translation are not doctrine altering. In fact they are supprisingly accurate when compared to the oldest text available.

Originally posted by gibun:
Does the king james version really have in access of 26,000 known translation errors?
There are undoubtedly translation errors in the KJV, the number of which I'm sure can be argued, but the bottom line is that they are for the most part minor spelling errors and the such that have no doctrine impact.

Originally posted by gibun:
How many so called christian churches?
There are many different flavors of Christian churches and churchs who claim to be Christian. I personally think that the classification should be based upon whether or not the church is Biblically based and certainly is not limited to one sect or the other. You can find good and bad apples in most denominational barrels.

Originally posted by gibun:
How many claim god is theirs only?
There are several Christian sects that claim theirs is the only correct sect... I do not agree with them however if thats your cup of tea...

Originally posted by gibun:
How many hear god's voice, as president Bush does?
Billions that identify themselves as Christian I would say try to listen to what God is telling them...or at least I hope so.

Originally posted by gibun:
How little tolerance?

For sin (acts) .... none
For sinners (people) ... infinite
This is a confusing concept, and certainly a simplification, that most people outside (and many inside) the faith do not understand and thus get the idea that Christianity is some kind of intolerant hate group.

Originally posted by gibun:
How little understanding and or respect?

As I said at the beginning of the post if your negative attitude of Christianity is from people who called themselves Christian then I'm sorry. However if your attitude is from ignorance then I would suggest reading the Gospels and then form your opinion.

Originally posted by gibun:
And how does one react to the fact that so called christianity is different from culture to culture?

With respect. They may have different beliefs about dogma and other non-salvation related issues than me, but it is futile to try and argue minutiae with others when they have the big picture correct.

If it is a question of salvation however, it is a point worth arguing in my opinion.

Originally posted by gibun:
How many of you realise that the same so called church, in different countries and cultures, differ as day and night.
No idea how many others do but since you probably meant this as rhetoric it doesn't really matter.

Originally posted by gibun:
The question of this day may be read in my statement... THE CHURCH IS A MONEY MAKING RACKET. Preying on the masses of innocent, gullable people, promising them what?


Some "churches" certainly are only there for the money, however it is a stretch to describe them as a real church.

This is where people have to take some responsibility and find out if a church exist for the right reasons and chose wisely.

____________________________

Like I said in the beginning the tone of your post is disappointing to me because it leads me to believe that you have had a bad experience with Christianity or Christians, and that truely is a shame.

So anyway back to the Shiavo Contorversy. The situation is just no win. I pray for peace for both sides of the family.

edited: clarification

Message edited by author 2005-03-30 09:46:06.
 03/30/2005 10:05:07 AM · #509
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Ron, you stated that you are a "fundamentalist evangelical Christian" from an earlier post. Here are some associations I make with these terms: evangelical = zealousness, preaching, conversion to Christianity, missionary work, strict acceptance of scripture as the rule of law, inerrancy of the bible. Fundamentalism = THE authority, intolerance, militancy, aggressiveness, rigidity. Are these accurate descriptions?

In a word, No. First, you are confusing Fundamentalism ( a militant movement ) with Fundamentilist Christianity ( a set of tenets ). A fundamentalist Christian ( as opposed to a fundamentalist Islamist, or any other "fundamentalist" ), holds firmly to the five fundamentals of the Christian faith. As explained in the Wikipedia: The term, Fundamentalist, tends to have a variable meaning. Historically, and for those who use the name to describe themselves, a Fundamentalist Christian is one who holds to all of the five Fundamentals of the Faith as a bare-minimum definition of Christian faith. Those five fundamentals are listed by SOME as
- The inerrancy of the Scriptures
- The virgin birth (or deity) of Jesus
- The doctrine of substitutionary atonement
- The bodily resurrection of Jesus
- The miracles of Jesus Christ
Others, like myself, hold the five fundamentals as being those of the Protestant Reformation - those being
- Sola Scriptura - The Bible is the only authorative Word of God
- Sola Christus - Christ, and no other, is the means of Salvation
- Sola Gratia - We are saved by Grace alone, not by merit
- Sola Fide - Salvation comes by faith alone, not by works
- Soli Deo Gloria - All glory is to God alone

Evangelicalism is fairly accurately described by Wikipedia as:

1. An emphasis on the conversion experience. The conversion is also called being 'saved' or the "new birth" or being "born again" after John 3:3 (Evangelicals are sometimes referred to as "born-again Christians" because of this emphasis.)
2. The use of the Bible as the primary source of God's revelation to man, and therefore the ultimate religious authority.
3. Encourage evangelism, that is the act of sharing one's beliefs in the gospel with others in order to convince them to convert, either in organized missionary work or through personal evangelism.
4. A central focus on Christ's redeeming work on the cross, especially as the means for salvation and the forgiveness of sins.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
There are probably plenty of people who would mirror these views.

Unfortunately, I am afraid that you are correct.

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
An example of a threat that comes from Christian fundamentalists that I believe to be still before Congress (in committee?) is the Constitutional Restoration Act of 2004. As I read it, it would acknowledge god as the sovereign source of law and limit or prevent the US Supreme Court from hearing appeals if lower courts acknowledged god as the source of law. It would also allow biblical punishments to be meted out, such as eye for an eye, stoning, etc, without judicial review.

"Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an element of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official personal capacity), by reason of that element’s or officer’s acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government."

Would you be for or opposed to such legislation which would be a gross change in our structure of government in favor of a theocracy?

Ignoring your expository comment, I would still be extremely opposed to such legislation. It has no basis in scripture as I see it. For what it's worth, scripture says that believers are to obey all of the laws of man, so long as they do not violate the laws of God. For example, if a law were passed the everyone MUST worship the President, then there would be a problem.
 03/30/2005 10:50:43 AM · #510
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Just be careful not to negatively stereotype any ethnic, racial, gender, religious or other protected group. That means if you want to refer to a position held by or express an opinion of certain leaders or members of one of those groups, you should not generalize it to the entire group.

"Pat Robertson and some other fundamentalist leaders advocate..." reads very differently than "Christian fundamentalists advocate..."

Replace "Christian fundamentalists" with "Jews" or "Blacks," for example, in some of the posts I have objected to, and see how they read, and I think you will see our concern.

-Terry


So then the qualifier "some" should suffice in most instances? And will you require of RonB when he negatively stereotypes liberals that he be required to use the "some" qualifier? For example: "Some liberals believe" or "some liberals advocate"....

Criticism noted, Judith. I will carefully qualify my use of the such political terms in the future. In return, I will expect the same courtesy whenever other posters use the terms 'Conservative", "NeoCon", "Right-Wingers", etc.
 03/30/2005 12:18:04 PM · #511
Originally posted by RonB:
- Sola Fide - Salvation comes by faith alone, not by works


I think this is the reasoning many people use to continue to think they are good Christians and will go to heaven, even though their actions have lead to breakings of many laws, those of man and god.

I think that one needs rewording.
 03/30/2005 12:59:44 PM · #512
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by RonB:
- Sola Fide - Salvation comes by faith alone, not by works


I think this is the reasoning many people use to continue to think they are good Christians and will go to heaven, even though their actions have lead to breakings of many laws, those of man and god.

I think that one needs rewording.

No rewording needed. You may be right ( given the qualifier "many" ) in what you say. But the majority of fundamentalist Christians do not "continue to think they are good Christians and will go to heaven". Rather, they think that they are abject sinners ( BAD Christians ), but are STILL going to heaven - because of faith, not because of good works. By the same token, they ( the majority ) do not feel that BAD works would keep them from going to heaven, since it is only FAITH that is the determinant factor ( coupled, of course, with GRACE, made possible by the atonement of Christ ).

Did you know that Jeffrey Dahmer ( the cannibal ) was "saved" through faith in Christ before he was killed in prison? If true, then according to Fundamentalist Christian doctrine, he will be in heaven. As will serial killers "Monster" Eileen Wournos, and Ted Bundy, among others. That's the power of Grace through Faith.

Message edited by author 2005-03-30 13:00:31.
 03/30/2005 01:28:27 PM · #513
Well, if all those psychopathic killers got into heaven, then reserve a ticket for me in hell. I'd bet that the families of their victims would follow me there as well. Sola Fide is a scary notion indeed because it seems to excuse egregious (what you would call) sin. Perhaps that explains your defense of big mistakes in government. Sorry Ron, but I just don't get it, thinking and believing pious thoughts have to be backed up with good action.

Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Originally posted by RonB:
- Sola Fide - Salvation comes by faith alone, not by works


I think this is the reasoning many people use to continue to think they are good Christians and will go to heaven, even though their actions have lead to breakings of many laws, those of man and god.

I think that one needs rewording.

No rewording needed. You may be right ( given the qualifier "many" ) in what you say. But the majority of fundamentalist Christians do not "continue to think they are good Christians and will go to heaven". Rather, they think that they are abject sinners ( BAD Christians ), but are STILL going to heaven - because of faith, not because of good works. By the same token, they ( the majority ) do not feel that BAD works would keep them from going to heaven, since it is only FAITH that is the determinant factor ( coupled, of course, with GRACE, made possible by the atonement of Christ ).

Did you know that Jeffrey Dahmer ( the cannibal ) was "saved" through faith in Christ before he was killed in prison? If true, then according to Fundamentalist Christian doctrine, he will be in heaven. As will serial killers "Monster" Eileen Wournos, and Ted Bundy, among others. That's the power of Grace through Faith.
03/30/2005 01:40:02 PM · #514
Originally posted by RonB:
I was an elder in a small congregation that had no church building. We had a long-standing agreement to rent some rooms at a town-owned community center each Sunday morning for three hours to hold our services. We were also permitted to put up a sandwich-board style sign at the side of the street in front of the hall during those hours. Apparently someone complained about the "separation of church and state" because we were informed one day that we had two-months to make other arrangements - the town could no longer rent us the facility. I'm sure that we could have sued, since other organizations that met regularly at the hall were not so impacted. Not wishing to do so, however, we sought other accomodations - and were successful. We made arrangements with the Superintendant of Schools to rent the auditorium and cafeteria at a nearby elementary school on Sunday mornings. Well, needless to say, that accomodation only lasted a couple of months. Once the town fathers found out about it, that agreement was also voided. We ended up finding other accomodations at a nearby Christian school.
So, even though BOTH actions by the town were illegal, we were still "impaired" in the ability to practice our beliefs, because of the imposition of the ( erroneous ) beliefs of others.


No one impaired your ability to practice your beliefs. The town and the school have no obligation to provide space for you to practice your beliefs. Does the townhall provide space for the local law abiding satanic cult or KKK to meet? Would you oppose it if they did? I won't let your group meet in my living room (nor the other two groups). Am I impairing your ability to practice your beliefs?
 03/30/2005 01:48:14 PM · #515
Originally posted by gibun:
Who says 'ignorence is bliss, knowledge pain'?


I take it these are rhetorical questions, but I will answer this one because it is in my signature. Solomon, the wisest of Biblical kings, says this in Lamentations. But you already knew as much or you would not have brought it up in this discussion.

Message edited by author 2005-03-30 13:53:08.
 03/30/2005 04:15:35 PM · #516
Originally posted by louddog:
Originally posted by RonB:
I was an elder in a small congregation that had no church building. We had a long-standing agreement to rent some rooms at a town-owned community center each Sunday morning for three hours to hold our services. We were also permitted to put up a sandwich-board style sign at the side of the street in front of the hall during those hours. Apparently someone complained about the "separation of church and state" because we were informed one day that we had two-months to make other arrangements - the town could no longer rent us the facility. I'm sure that we could have sued, since other organizations that met regularly at the hall were not so impacted. Not wishing to do so, however, we sought other accomodations - and were successful. We made arrangements with the Superintendant of Schools to rent the auditorium and cafeteria at a nearby elementary school on Sunday mornings. Well, needless to say, that accomodation only lasted a couple of months. Once the town fathers found out about it, that agreement was also voided. We ended up finding other accomodations at a nearby Christian school.
So, even though BOTH actions by the town were illegal, we were still "impaired" in the ability to practice our beliefs, because of the imposition of the ( erroneous ) beliefs of others.


No one impaired your ability to practice your beliefs. The town and the school have no obligation to provide space for you to practice your beliefs. Does the townhall provide space for the local law abiding satanic cult or KKK to meet? Would you oppose it if they did? I won't let your group meet in my living room (nor the other two groups). Am I impairing your ability to practice your beliefs?


I agree with louddog. First of all, you say "Apparently someone complained"..., leading me to believe that you really don't know whether someone complained or not. Second, you say "other organizations that met regularly at the hall were not so impacted." You didn't say other religious groups. If the town has a policy to not allow any religious groups to use their facilities, then I don't think that qualifies as discrimination against Christians or your religious beliefs in particular. Same goes for the school. I think you should find out first what their policies are regarding ALL religious groups before you accuse them of imposing their beliefs.

But putting all that aside, I have to tell you that the public face of religious extremism in this country in the recent past is a very ugly face. It's one of intolerance and bigotry and even violence. I fail to understand why you think the world should tolerate or embrace such beliefs when the belief system is predicated on intolerance of others' beliefs. It seems to me the intolerance and rejection of religious extremism isn't so much discrimination as it is self-defense.

Message edited by author 2005-03-30 16:16:58.
 03/30/2005 04:42:06 PM · #517
Originally posted by louddog:
Originally posted by RonB:
I was an elder in a small congregation that had no church building. We had a long-standing agreement to rent some rooms at a town-owned community center each Sunday morning for three hours to hold our services. We were also permitted to put up a sandwich-board style sign at the side of the street in front of the hall during those hours. Apparently someone complained about the "separation of church and state" because we were informed one day that we had two-months to make other arrangements - the town could no longer rent us the facility. I'm sure that we could have sued, since other organizations that met regularly at the hall were not so impacted. Not wishing to do so, however, we sought other accomodations - and were successful. We made arrangements with the Superintendant of Schools to rent the auditorium and cafeteria at a nearby elementary school on Sunday mornings. Well, needless to say, that accomodation only lasted a couple of months. Once the town fathers found out about it, that agreement was also voided. We ended up finding other accomodations at a nearby Christian school.
So, even though BOTH actions by the town were illegal, we were still "impaired" in the ability to practice our beliefs, because of the imposition of the ( erroneous ) beliefs of others.


No one impaired your ability to practice your beliefs.

Yes, they did.

Originally posted by louddog:
The town and the school have no obligation to provide space for you to practice your beliefs.

That is true. UNLESS they provide such space for ANY OTHER group to meet on the same premises.

Originally posted by louddog:
Does the townhall provide space for the local law abiding satanic cult or KKK to meet?

If the group is law-abiding, the characterisics of the group are immaterial.

Originally posted by louddog:
Would you oppose it if they did?

Not at all.

Originally posted by louddog:
I won't let your group meet in my living room (nor the other two groups). Am I impairing your ability to practice your beliefs?

No "leeway for circumstances". No you are not impairing MY ability to practice my beliefs. However, someone LIKE you, if they DO rent space in their home for the purpose of meetings by ANY organization, MUST NOT deny a religious group from renting that same space. To do otherwise is illegal discrimination.

When I respond to Judith's post, I will cite court decisions to prove my points.
 03/30/2005 05:28:31 PM · #518
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I agree with louddog. First of all, you say "Apparently someone complained"..., leading me to believe that you really don't know whether someone complained or not.

That is true. We were not told that "someone complained", but we were told that it was a "church/state separation" issue.

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Second, you say "other organizations that met regularly at the hall were not so impacted." You didn't say other religious groups. If the town has a policy to not allow any religious groups to use their facilities, then I don't think that qualifies as discrimination against Christians or your religious beliefs in particular. Same goes for the school. I think you should find out first what their policies are regarding ALL religious groups before you accuse them of imposing their beliefs.

As I responded to louddog, the town CANNOT legally disallow religious groups access if it allows non-religious groups access. I will post some examples following this post.

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
But putting all that aside, I have to tell you that the public face of religious extremism in this country in the recent past is a very ugly face. It's one of intolerance and bigotry and even violence. I fail to understand why you think the world should tolerate or embrace such beliefs when the belief system is predicated on intolerance of others' beliefs. It seems to me the intolerance and rejection of religious extremism isn't so much discrimination as it is self-defense.

You fail to understand because you have made assumptions about me that have no basis in fact. Where have I ever said that I think that the world should tolerate or embrace such beliefs? Please show me.

It is most interesting that in within the span of two sentences you first condemn intolerance BY religious extremism, then immediately defend the intolerance OF religious extremism. It appears that your view of intolerance varies depending on whether or not it supports YOUR agenda.

Now for the court cases to "prove" that the type of discrimination levied against our church is illegal:

1) this link tells of a suit brought against the town of Babylon, New York for discrimination in the use of town facilities. Part of that article says ( emphasis mine):

"In a decision reached May 25, 2001 and released to the ACLJ today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit reversed the lower court decision and found that the Town of Babylon’s facilities use policy is unconstitutional. At the same time, the federal appeals court ordered that the town halt its discriminatory action against the church and the pastor immediately."

2) this link tells of a suit brought against the town of Tucson, Arizona for discrimination in the use of a park. Part of the article says ( emphasis mine ):

"In a decision regarded as a major victory in a 40-year battle over religious speech in public life, a federal court ruled yesterday the city of Tucson, Ariz., must let its employees use city facilities to observe the National Day of Prayer.

U.S. District Court Judge Frank R. Zapata's 22-page decision concluded Tucson's "policy of precluding events 'held in direct support of religious organizations' from receiving Civic Events Funds support is declared invalid and unconstitutional because it violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is not justified by First Amendment Establishment Clause considerations."

3) this link tells of a suit brought against a High School in Spanaway, Washington for discrimination in the use of school facilities. Part of the article says ( emphasis mine ):

"The ACLJ filed suit when Tausha Prince, a sophomore at Spanaway Lake High School in Spanaway, Washington tried to set-up World Changers, a student-led, student-initiated Bible club. School officials refused to allow the club equal status with other student clubs because it was "religious." A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court decision and ruled that the school district had violated Prince's constitutional rights. The appeals court determined that the school district violated the Equal Access Act of 1984 and the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment when it failed to permit the Bible club to have access to the same benefits given to other student groups - including access to the school's public address system. The school district appealed to the United States Supreme Court, but the Court denied review in October, 2003."

Need more?

Message edited by author 2005-03-30 17:31:52.
 03/30/2005 05:35:47 PM · #519
... and the debate regarding Terri Shiavo seems to have fallen by the wayside.
 03/30/2005 06:29:51 PM · #520
Okay, so then if I'm a leader of a satanic cult, the christian school that your group ended up at can not refuse my group from renting out the same space, legally. Could they stop me from putting a sandwich board out front saying "Devil Worship here" while I'm renting it out? If they allow your sign I imagine they'd have to allow mine.

Good info to know.

And, I would not consider an eviction notice enough to impair me from practicing my beliefs, but to each his own.

03/30/2005 06:42:55 PM · #521
Originally posted by louddog:
Okay, so then if I'm a leader of a satanic cult, the christian school that your group ended up at can not refuse my group from renting out the same space, legally. Could they stop me from putting a sandwich board out front saying "Devil Worship here" while I'm renting it out?

NO, if they did NOT stop other groups from putting a sandwich board out front. YES, if they DID stop other groups.
Originally posted by louddog:
If they allow your sign I imagine they'd have to allow mine.

Yes, I imagine that they would also.

Originally posted by louddog:
Good info to know.

Yes, it is.

Originally posted by louddog:
And, I would not consider an eviction notice enough to impair me from practicing my beliefs, but to each his own.

Thanks. Just out of curiosity, would you consider that any of the groups who successfully sued for equal rights were impaired from practicing their beliefs, prior to their suits?
 03/30/2005 06:50:24 PM · #522
Originally posted by RonB:
Just out of curiosity, would you consider that any of the groups who successfully sued for equal rights were impaired from practicing their beliefs, prior to their suits?


I didn't read the cases all that closely but I'd say no.
 03/30/2005 07:23:03 PM · #523
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by RonB:
Did you know that Jeffrey Dahmer ( the cannibal ) was "saved" through faith in Christ before he was killed in prison? If true, then according to Fundamentalist Christian doctrine, he will be in heaven. As will serial killers "Monster" Eileen Wournos, and Ted Bundy, among others. That's the power of Grace through Faith.

Well, if all those psychopathic killers got into heaven, then reserve a ticket for me in hell. I'd bet that the families of their victims would follow me there as well. Sola Fide is a scary notion indeed because it seems to excuse egregious (what you would call) sin. Perhaps that explains your defense of big mistakes in government. Sorry Ron, but I just don't get it, thinking and believing pious thoughts have to be backed up with good action.

1) It's only scary if you don't believe.
2) It doesn't EXCUSE egregious sin - it only provides ATONEMENT for it.
3) I do not defend big mistakes in Government - but I do defend people who make big mistakes. ( Note: You and I often disagree on whether certain government actions are or are not "big mistakes", so if I DO defend such actions it is because I do not consider them to be "big mistakes" ).
4) Thinking and believing pious thoughts don't HAVE to be backed up with good actions. Non-Christians can have "pious thoughts" ( one of the meanings of "pious" is "Professing or exhibiting a strict, traditional sense of virtue and morality." - a "traditional sense of virtue and morality" does not require faith in Christ ). However, in the fundamentalist Christian sense, you are correct; believers are expected to "bear fruit" in keeping with their faith. The problem with Dahmer, Wournos, and Bundy is that they didn't become believers until they were already incarcerated. It's difficult to know whether they did or did not demonstrate "good actions" after their conversions.
5) At any rate, Salvation is a mystery. Scripture says that even the Angels do not fully understand it. I Peter 1:10-12

Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you: Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow. Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.
 03/30/2005 07:32:40 PM · #524
Originally posted by louddog:
Originally posted by RonB:
Just out of curiosity, would you consider that any of the groups who successfully sued for equal rights were impaired from practicing their beliefs, prior to their suits?


I didn't read the cases all that closely but I'd say no.


So, when GeneralE originally said
Originally posted by GeneralE:
You are free to practice your beliefs as long as that doesn't impair my ability to practice mine.

assuming that you are in agreement with that statement, I have two questions:
1) What would you consider to be an "impairment"?
2) What practice(s) of my beliefs COULD or WOULD impair your ability to practice yours?
 03/30/2005 08:04:30 PM · #525
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by louddog:
Originally posted by RonB:
Just out of curiosity, would you consider that any of the groups who successfully sued for equal rights were impaired from practicing their beliefs, prior to their suits?


I didn't read the cases all that closely but I'd say no.


So, when GeneralE originally said
Originally posted by GeneralE:
You are free to practice your beliefs as long as that doesn't impair my ability to practice mine.

assuming that you are in agreement with that statement, I have two questions:
1) What would you consider to be an "impairment"?
2) What practice(s) of my beliefs COULD or WOULD impair your ability to practice yours?


I'd agree with GeneralE's statement, but I wasn't trying to make any point based off of it. I just didn't think your group was impaired.

1. To impair is to damage something. Your right to practice your beliefs was forcibly relocated, but not damaged (matter of opinion of course). If there was no other place in town to do it, or every place in town gave you the boot then I'd say your rights were impaired. You were simply inconvenienced That happens all the time to everyone for all sorts of reasons. Talk to someone that is gay, handicapped or a racial minority and see how much sympathy your groups story or impairment gets. Of course that's just my opinion so if you disagree, you can say so and we don't need to argue about it because we are already way off topic.

2. None that I know of, but are you up to something I should be aware of? :)
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 08/14/2025 04:26:09 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/14/2025 04:26:09 AM EDT.