Any serious Christians left?

Well. This is indeed puzzling. You ask who I am, when you know all along.

I did tell butryfly that an explanation was not necessary.

Because it's not.

I didn't, however, tell her not to respond. So, I think you are correct in your suspicion that you are dense.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Well. This is indeed puzzling. You ask who I am, when you know all along.

I did tell butryfly that an explanation was not necessary.

Because it's not.

I didn't, however, tell her not to respond. So, I think you are correct in your suspicion that you are dense.

A puzzle indeed. You know that I did not ask who you are. We all know who you are. I asked who are you to advise that another poster does not have to respond.

It is your opinion that an explanaion is not necessary. And, only your opinion. Your opinion is not what I was looking for. Unfortunately, that is what I got.

I probably am dense for wasting my time conversing with you. I have seen too many of your spiteful posts to others. I am not going to play along beyond this post.

0 Replies

Will somebody please be kind enough to define who a "christian" is? How does christians differ from other than christians like morals, ethics, crime, and other good stuff that defines christians from others?

0 Replies

I already said what I had to say a few pages back. This was a visual version of what I said. I didn't feel like wasting my time restating it again, and still don't, so you'll have to be satisfied with reading my previous post.

I recently found an interesting looking book on the whole web of subjects surrounding the depiction in the book cover I posted. Here's a link to it on Amazon if you're interested in reading the reviews or sample pages. I've added it to my library wish list to check out next time I visit the library.

Judge Sewall's Apology: The Salem Witch Trials and the Forming of an American Conscience

Quote:

Book Description

The Salem witch hunt of 1692 has entered our vocabulary as the very essence of injustice. Biographer and novelist Richard Francis looks at the familiar drama with fresh eyes, grasping the true significance of this cataclysm through the personal story of Samuel Sewall, New England Puritan, Salem trial judge, antislavery agitator, defender of Native American rights, utopian theorist, campaigner against periwigs, family man, gallant wooer.

Sewall's life encompassed the tensions that faced the second-generation colonists, caught between the staunch conservatism of the Puritans and the possibilities their new world offered. Everywhere there was conflict, schism, and violence; the new Americans were pitted against the Native Americans, whose pagan ways terrified them, and a hostile mother country intent on imposing her control over the colony. Out of the struggle to maintain unity emerged the forces that drove the Salem tragedy. For the first time, Francis reveals the nature and scale of the threat the authorities believed they were facing.

Five guilt-wracked years after pronouncing judgment at the trials, Sewall walked into his church in Boston and recanted the guilty verdicts, praying for forgiveness. This extraordinary act not only proved a turning point for Sewall, it marked the moment when modern American values and attitudes came into being -- the shift from an almost medieval and allegorical view of good and evil to a respect for the mysteries of the human heart.

Drawing on Sewall's copious diaries, Francis enables us to see the early colonists not as grim ideologues but as flesh and blood idealists, striving for a new society while coming to terms with the desires and imperfections of ordinary life. Through this unsung hero of conscience, we gain access to the first lost frontier of the New World.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

I asked who are you to advise that another poster does not have to respond.

A member on a message board. If you have a hard time understanding this--you may want to look back at all the times you stuck your nose in the middle of MY conversations. It may explain a bit for you.

It is your opinion that an explanaion is not necessary.

YES! Good show!
And, only your opinion.
Did you do a poll? I think you may be reaching a bit with this assumption. Careful now!

Your opinion is not what I was looking for.
I can't TELL you how many times I thought the same thing about YOUR OPINION when it popped up unsolicited. I feel so close to you now.

I probably am dense for wasting my time conversing with you. I have seen too many of your spiteful posts to others. I am not going to play along beyond this post.

Count back on your spiteful posts, Rev. Do-badder.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

Intrepid wrote:
I asked who are you to advise that another poster does not have to respond.

A member on a message board. If you have a hard time understanding this--you may want to look back at all the times you stuck your nose in the middle of MY conversations. It may explain a bit for you.

It is your opinion that an explanaion is not necessary.

YES! Good show!
And, only your opinion.
Did you do a poll? I think you may be reaching a bit with this assumption. Careful now!

Your opinion is not what I was looking for.
I can't TELL you how many times I thought the same thing about YOUR OPINION when it popped up unsolicited. I feel so close to you now.

I probably am dense for wasting my time conversing with you. I have seen too many of your spiteful posts to others. I am not going to play along beyond this post.

Count back on your spiteful posts, Rev. Do-badder.

Oh, so it was spite. I hope it wasn't because I never responded to your PM's in the past.

0 Replies

Now you know why I didn't bother repeating myself. Everyone is too busy having thumb wars with their egos to have any kind of discussion and learn something from/about each other.

No worry, that seems to be the life blood of the forums these days. Probably why I don't post nearly as much as I used to.

0 Replies

Intrepid wrote:

Lash wrote:
Intrepid wrote:
I asked who are you to advise that another poster does not have to respond.

A member on a message board. If you have a hard time understanding this--you may want to look back at all the times you stuck your nose in the middle of MY conversations. It may explain a bit for you.

It is your opinion that an explanaion is not necessary.

YES! Good show!
And, only your opinion.
Did you do a poll? I think you may be reaching a bit with this assumption. Careful now!

Your opinion is not what I was looking for.
I can't TELL you how many times I thought the same thing about YOUR OPINION when it popped up unsolicited. I feel so close to you now.

I probably am dense for wasting my time conversing with you. I have seen too many of your spiteful posts to others. I am not going to play along beyond this post.

Count back on your spiteful posts, Rev. Do-badder.

Oh, so it was spite. I hope it wasn't because I never responded to your PM's in the past.

Then, why do I have such sweet PMs from you? Very Happy

(I should warn you that I generally think discussing personal correspondances is deeply declasse; however, my own odd morality follows as such: If someone else is low enough to begin characterizing personal messages in public--and especially if they do it dishonestly--I just start slinging their **** all over the place.)

Have ****. Will sling. Very Happy

If you are referring to the time I fussed at you for involving yourself in an argument with another person (arguable categorization, but I'm feeling benevolent) and asked you to excuse me or get over it or play footsie again...<can't remember>, but I was SO sweet and kind and all friend-like.

... and then, wonderful Christian that you are, you ignored that, then...

Nah. That wasn't it. Laughing

0 Replies

Arella Mae wrote:

I cannot completely disagree with you here, Maporsche, but in some cases, allowing others to have these rights does hurt others. Now, it's a whole other can of worms that would be opened when you start trying to explain how someone doing something is effecting you negatively because if you would vote for it, obviously, you wouldn't feel that way.

Take for instance gambling, do you know how high the crime rate jumped in Louisiana when gambling casinos became legal? Instances of theft, muggings, etc., increased greatly.

Statistics may show some correlation, but they don't indicate the cause. Casino gambling, itself, does not infringe upon your rights. If you were a person who enjoyed casino gambling you might be more inspired to look for the real cause. Instead, you find it easier to disrespect the rights of others by trying to prohibit them from doing things that have absolutely no impact on you.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

Statistics may show some correlation, but they don't indicate the cause. Casino gambling, itself, does not infringe upon your rights. If you were a person who enjoyed casino gambling you might be more inspired to look for the real cause. Instead, you find it easier to disrespect the rights of others by trying to prohibit them from doing things that have absolutely no impact on you.

Echi, dear, first of all, did I say it was the definite cause of it? No, I did not. I said statistics showed that there was an increase in Louisiana when the casinos came in. That's as far as I went with it. You can surely think all you want that gambling had nothing at all to do with the rise in theft (do you think maybe some were stealing to get money to gamble? Shocked

) but I think anyone would be hard pressed to say that none of these crimes were committed because of gambling. That just seems like common sense. Understand?

Oh, so you think it's ok for you and others to disrespect my rights instead? You find that easier, do you? Rolling Eyes

The casinos are legal. They were voted in. That's the law. However, I don't have to engage in the activity. And I didn't have to vote for them. Get it yet? :wink:

0 Replies

echi, Spot on!

0 Replies

Oh, I'm sorry. Would you not (if given the chance) vote against Louisiana's casinos?

0 Replies

echi wrote:

Oh, I'm sorry. Would you not (if given the chance) vote against Louisiana's casinos?

Arella Mae Wrote:

Quote:

The casinos are legal. They were voted in. That's the law. However, I don't have to engage in the activity. And I didn't have to vote for them. Get it yet?

Perhaps you misunderstood Echi. I voted no. I voted no for videopoker and I voted no on every gambling ballot that came up that we had a vote in. That is my RIGHT. The one you seem to want to take away from me just by telling me I am wrong (if that is what you are saying, that is. :wink: )

0 Replies

Please don't take away her right to take away other people' rights....

0 Replies

Hmmm, seems to me that some of you are doing the very thing you are accusing me of?

http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/39.gif

So, just what makes YOUR rights more important than MY rights?

http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/7.gif

0 Replies

Best not to clutter the thread with facts.

0 Replies

Arella Mae wrote:

Hmmm, seems to me that some of you are doing the very thing you are accusing me of?[/img]

Care to demonstrate that be so?

Intrepid wrote:

Best not to clutter the thread with facts.

She hasn't so far.

0 Replies

Hey holmes, whatever happened to "putting away the sticks"?

0 Replies

Arella Mae wrote:

Hmmm, seems to me that some of you are doing the very thing you are accusing me of?

So, just what makes YOUR rights more important than MY rights?

The point is that you HAVE NO RIGHT to take away other's rights.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

Arella Mae wrote:
Hmmm, seems to me that some of you are doing the very thing you are accusing me of?

So, just what makes YOUR rights more important than MY rights?

The point is that you HAVE NO RIGHT to take away other's rights.

Show me where in the constitution it says I can't vote my conscience? Show me where in the constitution it says I MUST or MUST NOT base my vote on any specific thing.

I have the RIGHT to vote the way I want for whatever reason I want. If I want to go into the voting booth and just check yes or no without even thinking about it, that is also my right. It is also yours. You CANNOT legislate how someone comes to the decision they make on how they vote, Echi. Now, you are asking me to give someone rights that they don't currently have (as in the case of same sex marriage, for instance). In order to do that I would have to cast my rights aside. Again I ask, what makes YOUR rights more important than MY rights?

0 Replies

Any serious Christians left?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know