Onward, Moderate Christian Soldiers - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-19-2005, 07:54 AM   #46
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 01:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonosSaint
Not to sound flip, but I think it is dangerous and against Christ's teachings when Christians spend more time worrying about other's sins than their own. And this vocal minority I keep ranting about spends more time carping about sin than offering the message of salvation.
I agree with you. Christians do need to worry about their own sin. However, we are to tell people about sin and its consequences, so that they will find the way to Christ. But targeting specific individuals and their specific sin is not the way to do it. For instance, I have the same message for everyone, whether their sin is sexual sin, greed, hatred, etc. My message is simply - "Are you a sinner? Do you have a repentant attitude and want to be forgiven? If so, I can tell you how."
__________________

__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 06-19-2005, 08:08 AM   #47
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 01:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


I'll leave that up to individual conscience. The fact remains that she would have been dead 15 years ago, had she not been kept alive by artificial means. If we're going to question morality, let's question the morality of feeding tubes and life support on people who have no hope of survival. I mean, Christianity believes in stuff like "Heaven" right?
melon, why do you consistently leave out the motivation of those of us who wanted to keep her alive? We believed that it WASN'T a hopeless situation. We believed there WAS hope.


Quote:
Originally posted by melon

If he was Roman Catholic like Terri, technically speaking, divorce is not an option.
If he was Roman Catholic like Terri, cheating on his wife was even less of an option, but he took that option.

Quote:
Originally posted by melon

Secondly, if Michael believed that her parents were completely nuts, he perhaps didn't want to see her languish like that for even more decades.
Oh, because he loved his wife so much, right?

Quote:
Originally posted by melon
If Michael Shiavo was an otherwise upright fundamentalist Christian minister who had remained single and celibate for 15 years and believed that it was still the right thing to unhook Terri from her feeding tube against her parents wishes, what would your opinion be?

Melon
If I believed there was still hope, I would not want her feeding tube removed.
__________________

__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 06-19-2005, 08:10 AM   #48
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 01:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars


quote by 80sU2isBest: "And if they don't realize their need for a savior, they'll be lost forever."

I disagree. I also don´t see any part of the Bible that supports your assumption (and I am only talking about this sentence, I agree with much of your posts).

Jesus will also save those who don´t see the need to be saved right now.
No one can become a Christian without first realizing he/she is a sinner and seeing their need for a savior. That's part of becoming a Christian - admitting your sin and asking forgiveness for it.

Unless a person sees the need for a savior, he will not become a Christian. God doesn't force anyone. Give me a biblical example of anyone being saved against his own will.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 06-19-2005, 08:11 AM   #49
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 01:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars


But many parts of the Bible were abandoned over the years. For example, in today´s Bible, there is no mentioning of Adam´s first wife, Lilith. Everyone knows the story of Adam and Eve, but few know the story of Lilith and Adam. Those parts were cleaned out in medieval age I think.

Historically, it often was a political power issue if and which parts were removed from the original Bible.
Many books were left out because they couldn't be credibly verified.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 06-19-2005, 08:32 AM   #50
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,163
Local Time: 07:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


. Christians do need to worry about their own sin. However, we are to tell people about sin and its consequences, so that they will find the way to Christ. But targeting specific individuals and their specific sin is not the way to do it. For instance, I have the same message for everyone, whether their sin is sexual sin, greed, hatred, etc. My message is simply - "Are you a sinner? Do you have a repentant attitude and want to be forgiven? If so, I can tell you how."
accept free will, we will stand trail ourself. Accept non believers, they have the right to make their own choice. I accept that you get horny by the thoughts of your government making laws that make christians happy and other people suffer.


You can give us all kinds of information you want and i will read and make my choice, if you want to push it through my throught by law, you only a dictator.
__________________
Rono is offline  
Old 06-19-2005, 09:08 AM   #51
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 01:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Rono
accept free will, we will stand trail ourself. Accept non believers, they have the right to make their own choice.
Where did I say that I dodn't accept non-believers? I can't force the decision to follow Christ on any one. But I have an obligation and a desire to tell people about Christ so that they might have eternal life.

If you don't like that, I really don't care. I sometimes receive a tiny bit of flack for witnessing about Christ, but it's nothing compared to Christians in China and other countries who are exceuted and killed for sharing their faith. But if someone should hear the message and be saved, even just one person, it's worth it.

Quote:
Originally posted by Rono I accept that you get horny by the thoughts of your government making laws that make christians happy and other people suffer.
There was no need for that. That was a real jerky thing to say. When you say things like that, you may think it's "funny" or "cute", but I would almost guarantee that no one thinks its funny besides you and a very few others who pass out insult like candy. The rest of us respond to that kind of post by thinking "Grow Up."
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 06-19-2005, 09:38 AM   #52
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 01:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
melon, why do you consistently leave out the motivation of those of us who wanted to keep her alive? We believed that it WASN'T a hopeless situation. We believed there WAS hope.
Because you and many others were lead to believe there was hope by a subordinate hegemony that you identify with, to put it philosophically. I guess I can't blame you, really. These days, the messenger is more important than the message.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 06-19-2005, 10:28 AM   #53
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 01:03 PM
Yes, people do choose to put their trust in those "specialists" who support their own beliefs. Yes, we chose to believe the neuro-specialists who said there was hope, but you chose to believe those that said there was not.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 06-19-2005, 11:38 AM   #54
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 01:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
Yes, people do choose to put their trust in those "specialists" who support their own beliefs. Yes, we chose to believe the neuro-specialists who said there was hope, but you chose to believe those that said there was not.
What about those of us, who, as scientists "chose" to believe those who said they were not because our educational backgrounds and work expertise lead us to agree with them?

Turns out we were right.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 06-19-2005, 01:11 PM   #55
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 01:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


What about those of us, who, as scientists "chose" to believe those who said they were not because our educational backgrounds and work expertise lead us to agree with them?

Turns out we were right.
What "turned out to be right" doesn't have anything to do with my argument. I am speaking soley of the motivation of trying to keep the feeding tube attached, and Danforth's misrepresentation of those motives.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 06-19-2005, 01:51 PM   #56
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 01:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest
Yes, people do choose to put their trust in those "specialists" who support their own beliefs. Yes, we chose to believe the neuro-specialists who said there was hope, but you chose to believe those that said there was not.

what's been breathtaking in this discussion is your refusal to listen to science, either before or after the physical death of Terri Schiavo.

all your scientific "there might have been hope" arguments have been revealed to be nothing more than wishful thinking, just like the diagnosis via videotape you and Sen. Frist appear to be comfortable making. we now know her vision centers of the brain were dead, so she couldn't see a thing, not a baloon, not the face of her parents, nothing.

i suppose what's really going on here is that you've chosen to be manipulated, you've chosen to listen only to those who support what you want to know, and you've chosen to deamonize, through cheap innuendo and lame conspiracy theory, Michael Schiavo in the face of a complete and total vindication of his case.

it's not often that we get such a clear cut resolution to matters of faith vs. science. and this time, it is crystal clear: you people -- again, you said "we" -- were wrong.

the story ends.

let her body rest in peace.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 06-19-2005, 03:28 PM   #57
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 01:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511



what's been breathtaking in this discussion is your refusal to listen to science, either before or after the physical death of Terri Schiavo.
GOOD GRIEF, IRVINE!

I will say this AGAIN. I am, not talking about AFTER THE DEATH OF TERRI SCHIAVO at all. The entire point of my argument here was that Danforth made a misrepresentation of the motivation of those of us who wished the feeding tube to remain. He said it was for power reasons, and I said that is a misrepresentation, because for most of us, it was about life. Period. Now, there were indeed neuro-specialtists who said she was not a vegetable. I listened to those. Whether they were wrong or not HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS CONVERSATION, as again, I AM ONLY SPEAKING ABOUT THE MOTIVATION of people like me.

I have typed this in LARGE CAPITAL LETTERS so that you will not be able to miss them. But I'm sure that won't help, because I have made these points over and over again, but you and melon keep talking about WHAT THE AUTOPSY REVEALED, WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS.

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
all your scientific "there might have been hope" arguments have been revealed to be nothing more than wishful thinking, just like the diagnosis via videotape you and Sen. Frist appear to be comfortable making. we now know her vision centers of the brain were dead, so she couldn't see a thing, not a baloon, not the face of her parents, nothing.
.

There you go again, talking about what was revealed AFTER SHE DIED. You said "we now know". Maybe so, but that wasn't available before she died. There was no certainty about the vision centers being dead BEFORE SHE DIED, and I don't even remember that anyone even speculated that they were, so once again, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

i suppose what's really going on here is that you've chosen to be manipulated, you've chosen to listen only to those who support what you want to know.
No, what's going on here is that you and Melon REFUSE to address my argument which ONCE AGAIN, was that Danforth misrepresented the motivation of those of us who wanted to keep her on the feeding tube.

And as far as "choosing whom to listen to", your side did the same thing. You chose to listen to the doctors that were on your side even though there were other specialists who disaagreed.

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

and you've chosen to deamonize, through cheap innuendo and lame conspiracy theory.
Demonize? I don't have to demonize him. He's done a good job of that with his own actions. Cheap innuendo? I made no innuendo. I said it plainly; he shacked up with and had three kids with another woman while still married to his wife. That is called adultery.

Lame conspiracy theory - are you talking about the insurance money theory? I'm not the only one who has said that. What other reason could he have possibly had for not divorcing her since he obviously didn't love her enough to stay by her side, but continued to seek the termination of her life? Go ahead, give me one plausible reason. And don't try that "no divorce/Catholicism" thing on me like melon did, because as I told him, adultery is against Roman Catholic beliefs also, but that didn't seem to bother him. If he wasn't going to stay by her isde until the end and remian faithful to her, he should have set her free by divorcing her. But no, he had to keep control, even though he was screwing another woman.


Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
let her body rest in peace.
I didn't bring this subject up, Irvine. In fact, I haven't brought it up since she died. John Danforth's commentary, which was posted here, brought it up. Someone asked me what I thought, and I told him.
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 06-19-2005, 03:38 PM   #58
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 01:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest

Now, there were indeed neuro-specialtists who said she was not a vegetable. I listened to those.
80s, with all due respect, why did you listen to them? They were on the fringes, they numbered a tiny, TINY minority to whom the vast majority of the field gave absolutely no credibility. So why listen to them? Because you wanted to agree with what they were saying rather than opening up your eyes to the possibility, that the vast majority of experts, with absolutely no motivations apart from offering their expertise (unlike say, Frist and DeLay, who in the end sounded not only incompetent medically, but liars as well) just may be correct in their assessment?

When you want to hear only what you want to hear, you can find any "expert" to justify it. But when the other 99% are telling you otherwise, perhaps it would be scientifically prudent to evaluate a little bit closer why it is that they all disagree with you.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 06-19-2005, 05:00 PM   #59
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
80sU2isBest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,970
Local Time: 01:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


80s, with all due respect, why did you listen to them? They were on the fringes, they numbered a tiny, TINY minority to whom the vast majority of the field gave absolutely no credibility. So why listen to them? Because you wanted to agree with what they were saying rather than opening up your eyes to the possibility, that the vast majority of experts, with absolutely no motivations apart from offering their expertise (unlike say, Frist and DeLay, who in the end sounded not only incompetent medically, but liars as well) just may be correct in their assessment?

When you want to hear only what you want to hear, you can find any "expert" to justify it. But when the other 99% are telling you otherwise, perhaps it would be scientifically prudent to evaluate a little bit closer why it is that they all disagree with you.
Did the 99% who disagreed with them ever actually spend time with Terri, or are they part of the big crowd of people who were never even in the same room with her?
__________________
80sU2isBest is offline  
Old 06-19-2005, 05:01 PM   #60
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 01:03 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest


Did the 99% who disagreed with them ever actually spend time with Terri,
You mean like the good Senator Frist did?
__________________

__________________
anitram is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com