PrinceofLight2000

There are certain passages in the KJV that are revised by the JST because they are wholly counterintuitive. Case in point: Exodus 9:12. The fact that people attempt to rationalize fairly obvious errors like this to support the infallibility viewpoint is annoying to me. I also don't quite understand why the infallibility position is so crucial to their theology.

That's part of the reason why I posted this.

I don't understand how any non-judgmental person, let alone a self-proclaimed Christian, could give credence to mockery of any individual's personal communication with the Spirit. I personally don't get the whole burning in the bosom thing. When I feel the Spirit, I get chills.

Favorite LDS doctrine: the restoration of the priesthood, and by extension all the ordinances it contains that make the gospel possible. Least favorite traditional Christian doctrine: TULIP, celibacy, till death do us part, biblical infalliability, & closed scripture.

This happens in every religion. It's just going through the motions.

I'd vote for the second option if it didn't call him a martyr.

I made a two-choice poll, I think you entered the thread before I finished.

Please add reasoning by posting below. I'll vote now but add my two cents later since I'm busy, so for now I'll just stir the pot.

Nothing. Apples and oranges. Hardly. First, this has nothing to do with British laws. It's about a company intruding into the personal lives of their employees when they have no business doing so.Second, if I had a nickel for every time you post baseless claims like this hate speech bit and only substantiated them with more baseless claims and platitudes, I'd be rich. Sometimes I wonder if you don't really believe what you do, are just trying to stir the pot by making these baseless claims, or both.

I'm assuming you're not engaging OP and are instead engaging the uploader comments she copied and pasted from as devil's advocate. Just thought I'd point that out in case it wasn't crystal clear.

I've seen it. It's not the most horrifying thing in the world but it's not a picnic, and there is some unsavory language. This man should be disbarred and I don't know why it's impossible to file charges when there's evidence of abuse that everyone can see.

I think there's quite a lot of overreaching when you'd have to remove the info from your career description on facebook in order to preserve freedom of speech on your own personal page. In my mind, this is the same as having your boss walk into your house and overhearing you say something they disagreed with to a group of visitors, then firing you because you happened to be wearing your company jacket complete with nametag on your own personal time. If it's not happening on company property (as in a company-issued or official company facebook page) or on company time, they should have absolutely no grounds for disciplinary action, and I'd support a law specifically outlining such criteria. I also believe that most people with at least half a brain will realize that an individual stating their opinion, even in a professional setting, is not necessarily the position of any given conglomerate of people, including a company. Overreactions like this are quite patronizing. Frankly, it's none of the company's business what an employee says on anyone else's property, including social gatherings, when they aren't acting as a representative of the company (better known as being on the clock). That may also include professional company-related social gatherings where one is still recognized as a company rep, which is what I think you might have been thinking of when the word party was brought up.

Can someone link to the article in question? The link in the OP directs to CNN's home page. EDIT: nevermind, found it in one of the posts.

I want to cry. As someone else said on a forum I work at: "Apparently there are people in China who think the woman that helped the little girl was only after publicity. Just what planet are these people living on?"

Michael Jackson's personal doctor. He allegedly enabled and administered a fatal dose of a certain drug which I don't know how to spell and it killed him. The crux of the trial is determining whether Murray gave the shot or whether Michael self-administered it.

se·man·tics    /sɪˈmæntɪks/ Show Spelled[si-man-tiks] Show IPA noun (used with a singular verb) 1. Linguistics. a.the study of meaning. b.the study of linguistic development by classifying and examining changes in meaning and form. 2.Also called significs. the branch of semiotics dealing with the relations between signs and what they denote. 3.the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.: Let's not argue about semantics. 4.general semantics.

My questions: Does the word homosexuality refer to feelings or behaviors? Which of the following does the word homophobia refer to? "- Fear of homosexuals. Judging by its etymology, this may have been Its original meaning when the word was coined in the 19th century. - People who hate homosexuals and/or homosexuality. - Persons who want to retain some unique privileges for heterosexuals, like marriage, spousal visitation privileges in hospitals, insurance benefits, inheritance rights, ordination, etc. - A person who is frightened to speak out against homosexuality. - A belief that homosexual behavior is intrinsically immoral and should be criminalized. - A belief that homosexual orientation is intrinsically disordered." and lastly one not included in the quote from the link: - A belief that homosexual behavior is intrinsically immoral. Does there need to be a new term (eg homoscepticism) brought to common usage that separates hateful prejudice and mistreatment toward homosexuals from "a member of society that does not hate homosexuals, but generally does not agree with the principle of homosexuality in moral and ethical terms." I think one is needed, desperately. My fear is thus: "Q: Are all Christians homophobic by default? A: If we aren't now the word will be redefined until we are." Source material for consideration: How Can a Heterophobic Call Me Homophobic and Heterosexist? (check the webmaster's comments in this link) Do you object to being labelled 'homophobic' when you are actually just 'homosceptic'? A suggested approach for defusing an inflammatory issue. | The Lausanne Global Conversation Are all Christians homophobic by default? - Yahoo! Answers

Hoosier seems to have something of a one-track mind.

"But she insisted she falsely suggested the ticketed motorist was the son of a deputy but actually a college student she was trying to help out. She said she figured the misrepresentation would help get the ticket with a $175 fine tossed." A lie to poorly attempt to cover up a lie?

Someone should tell this lady there are less disgusting records that can be broken.

The whole time I was thinking "I see where this is going...now what do we do?" Would have been nice to include that in this video.

Why do we always need a study for things that are predictable with even a smidge of common sense? It's almost like people in certain ideological countercultures are in such denial about it that they have to set out to prove it before they believe what their gut is telling them despite their brain's denial. Oh, wait...

I have friends who could listen to Nyan Cat ALL DAY. Manchurian candidates? I think so.

Thanks. Precisely what I needed.

Is this valid?