betsy

Because only Sikhs have a legitimate non-violent reason to carry one (i.e. their faith requires them to). Anyone other than a Sikh would only carry a dagger because they intended to use it for violence. What if a religion required its members to carry marijuana? Should they be allowed to carry it in school? Or, do you think there might be some danger that these kids might peddle that drug to other kids?

Neither could the school board find one example of a gun being fired in school until the first kid was killed. It's unlikely that a gun-killing would occur without intent since the kid has deliberately sneaked it into school. If a kid with a dagger strapped to his side decides that he is somehow being insulted or otherwise offended, he won't have to deliberately go looking for a weapon, he'll have it handy. There may not be legal intent rendering him a murderer, but there will be a dead kid nonetheless. Would you rather your kid got killed by a murderer or a man-slaughterer? Intent, phoooey. We know the agenda of the Supreme Court of Canada. Why would we think they'd do the right thing anyway?

I saw the View only I think three time max, and quite frankly when I listened to all 4 anchorwomen together, it made me wonder why they've picked to include Rosie. Sure she can talk, but one can put a point across without being crass, vulgar and abrasive. In those few times I've watched it, I sensed the other three...especially Walter, seeming uncomfortable around her. I had the impression that they're trying to have a show that is above trashy....but unfortunately, they had to endure Rosie since she obviously pulls some audience. Oh, and that segment when they had Brolin (Streisand's husband), Rosie was practically sickening in her gushing adoration and worship of la Streisand (oh Rosie got to sleep on Streisand's side of the bed when she stayed in her house in Florida). Whooopeeeee!

Now, that's rational. You really shouldn't feed the trolls, dearie. Now go to sleep.

So what's this, "you're obviously not a Catholic." That's irrelevant! In this case, where's the hypocrisy?? Didn't this man admit to his sin? Didn't he resign from being a Minister? Didn't the CEO reiterated that this behaviour is not condoned? You don't make any sense at all! Just read what you've written. This is not rational. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....topic=9051&st=0 http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....opic=8917&st=15 http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....opic=9051&st=15 This sounds like the rantings of a mad person.

Drivel! Your rant is fueled by ignorance and anger! Long ago,you mentioned in another thread that someone close to you had been molested by a priest. That's why I've asked you recently if you are angry....that it seems you are fueled by anger. I guess I'm not wrong. Do you have a surrogate guilt or hate, because somebody you know was abused? You better learn to deal with it. It's fogging your judgement. Nobody, certainly not I, care whether you believe in God....but if you cannot carry on a rational discussion, you've got problems, no matter what world you inhabit.

Okay.

So in your world preaching the word is good enough. I take it then you would accept whole-heartedly a gay minister, or a divorced one, perhaps an ex-con? Hey, what about a Muslim convert? No, on the contrary just preaching the word is not good enough. You have to believe the word as well. I would whole-heartedly accept a homosexual priest....as long as he is not a practicing homosexual. Being a homosexual is something that is built-in to some people. Clearly, if he isn't a homosexual, there would be no temptation to perform homosexual acts. It's only one who is tempted to commit sodomy or whatever else that would be required to resist the temptation. I have an anecdote. The great English composer Benjamin Britten was openly homosexual, and confessed to someone that he had a strong desire for young boys. As far as the record shows, he never gave in to the temptation of molesting children. While I don't condone his homosexual behaviour, I admire him greatly for both his admission and his restraint. As for a Muslim convert, why not? If he's a convert, he's a convert! He may be very eloquent, but God will know if his conversion is genuine. Let Him be the judge. And that's the point. Newbie, will you read that highlighted quote again. We can decide whether we think his preaching is accurately portraying the Will of God. To the extent that it's his responsibility to lead Christ's children in the right direction, the more astute of his audience can take on some of the responsibility for those less perceptive. Assuming his teaching is sincere, we can only pray for quality leadership. His behaviour is what we're not in a position to judge. We leave that to God. If his preaching is in question as to its validity and sincerity, God will know....even if we in the audience don't. We'll have to deal with it. Let Jesus speak. He can do it more articulately than anyone here. "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone." And of course, none of us humans will qualify to throw that stone. And only God is without sin. He could decide whether stones should be thrown. So Newbie, for us Christians to say "He's only human" is simply a paraphrase of the Word of God. It is not a spin.

Yoo-hoo. You really don't get it. The standard is judged not by me....but by somebody Else. The judgement we're talking about isn't his preaching. It's his behaviour. I can decide whether the head of the United Church of Canada is preaching the Word of God when he denies the divinity of Christ. I can make the decision to either stay or leave if I'd had the misfortune of being part of that community, I'd have to deal with his heresy. But it's not my place to judge his behaviour (unless you mean by "judge", deciding whether I agree with him or not) or the consequences of his behaviour.

First of all, no one is angry here. A little frustrated, maybe. "his sin is to be judged." Never mind "I'll judge". That's the whole issue here. You're in no position to judge....unless of course you're perfect. We definitely won't say a perfect what. And no, the Pope is not held to a higher standard by anyone who counts in this issue. I thought I made it very clear that it's not your opinion that matters here. Don't imagine I'm wrong about that....I'm not. You're just another one of us. In the eyes of God. Nay-saying does not an argument make. You're wrong and I'm right. It's just that simple. No argument. Your argument has no merit, either logically or philosophically. Let alone, religiously.

??? If that is meant to suggest that you think liberalism is about controlling disagreement, then you labor under a profoundly mistaken grasp of that subject. I'm very well acquainted with what liberalism means, believe me. And it means nothing like what post-modern leftwing loonies who call themsleves liberals think it means.

It was a play on words Betsy. And as far as the "human" thing, most Christians use the "he's only human" line when one of their leaders exhibits a moral transgression. These heads of the church are held to a higher standard, particularly when they preach against the very impropriety they engage in. The heads of the church are held to a higher [moral] standard? By whom? In fact in the eyes of a knowlegeable, and compassionate Christian, our leaders are held to exactly the same standard as all others. It is a modern secularist's view that allows for variable moral "standards" - and a variable standard is no standard at all (but how often doesn't THAT obvious truth need repeating?) Furthermore, it's not that some Christians - and some others as well - might hold leaders to a higher standard that's important - some Christians, like everyone, are somewhat judgemental sometimes, and some Christians, like many others, are judgemental most of the time (do I sound like Lincoln LOL) The point is that the offending leader is judged by God, and in these matters, only God's opinion is significant. And I would guess that His standard for that offending priest would be the same as for you or me. But I doubt that He'll share "His decision" with us. To put it simply, who are you to judge. Worry about your own sins, and since you don't believe in God (forgive me, but that's the impression I've got), you're on your own with your improprieties. You speak scornfully of that poor priest's resignation, contriteness and apologies. It would be a far better world, in my opinion, if we could all as readily admit that we blew it and sincerely try to get things back together. Ironically, at once, liberal "thinkers" dump the very idea of a standard of morality, and then attempt to judge others based on that other's commitments. The arrogance of ignorance - the legacy of your original post-modern leader and philosopher - right up there with John Lennon, John Ralston Saul, and Oprey Winfry - P. E. Trudeau!! BTW, what do you mean "play on words"? It wasn't a play on words by any stretch. It was just a dumb cliche you thought might fit in here.

Actually, I consider Cybercoma a gift from God. You effectively articulate the shallowness of the liberal atheist secularist society we live in. You can't seem to differentiate between a human being who is contrite and realizes the error of his ways. You prefer the sinner who goes crying, kicking and screaming to his judgement, only after he's been exposed beyond any possibility of lying his way out of it. Sounds like Jean Chretien to me.

The school of rational thought. It looks to me like most posters on this topic failed dismally at the School of Rational Thought. BUT, that's just an opinion. A marriage NOW is two people giving vows to each other. We have the Supreme Court of Canada to thank for that, Dube' et al, and let's not discuss the "merits" of THAT group of nine. So a marriage is a marriage is a marriage. I'm glad to see that at least you've got the numbers right. Soon, it will be a marriage is a marriage is a marriage is a marriage is a marriage is a marriage. And once we've got the numbers organized, we can throw in "between any number of living beings." Owning a kennel will take on a whole new meaning. I'm not sure about your safeguards. But the safeguard of the Constitution, the whole point of a Constitution, is so that the terms of it are un-changeable....or at least very difficult to change. The fathers of our constitution, at least as they imagined themselves, because I'm talking about the Trudeaupean loonies who brought in the Charter of Rights. Even they had the sense to explicitly state that sexual orientation was NOT protected as a right under the Constitution and the Charter Of Rights. Then our supremely loony court decided to ignore the architects of the Charter Of Rights and imposed on society their own will and agenda. Nobody is asking you for your opinion, or anyone else's, as to whether allowing homosexual marriage detracts or doesn't detract from anyone else's arrangements. That isn't the issue. Your opinion isn't what we're talking about. No matter how popular it is. No, they didn't. They did the absolutely wrong thing, both morally and legally. Furthermore they've abdicated their responsibility to the Charter Of Rights, and to the people of Canada in order to promote their own l(L)iberal agenda. I know you have difficulty with equality. You're a liberal. In the liberal mind, not being able to do what you want to do is inequality. Because you imagine everyone else can do what they want to do. And if they can't, they should be able to. Doing what you want to do without restriction, and at your own whim isn't equality. It's anarchy. What do you mean what does it mean? It means what it says. Do I have to analyze the language for you? Your contempt for the institutions of our society is what's laughable. And what does the quality - pissing on their marriages, as you so delicately put it - have to do with institutions? And what is this nonsense about the quality of marriages anyway? Of course many marriages end. Our society has degraded over the last few decades, in no small part, thanks to the liberal nonsense of the "ME" generations. What does that have to do with anything? How many homosexual relationships had begun and ended in the same way? No it's not adultery....we define adultery as an illicit relationship between a man and a woman married to diferent people. But it is promiscuity. I no more condone promiscuity in a heterosexual marriage than I do in a homosexual relationship. But we all know that homosexual relationships are much more likely to disolve. Anyway the quality of relationships isn't the point. Not that I expect you to stick to the point. But hey. Property rights originated and developed from the societal assumptions of family and inheritance. Although there's nothing simple about this, your declaration, whatever it means, doesn't alter the fact that changing centuries of legal developments has its consequences. We'll be dealing with them for generations. "It is now, regardless of any religious ranting" - And what does this mean? Nothing. Anyway, let's agree to disagree. You're wrong and I'm right. We've already gone over all these points on this site. At least take the time to research the site if nothing else. Hasta la vista.

I'm busy right now. I'll deal with you later.

It wasn't legal.

Go back to school and learn the merits of this debate. They are not allowed property rights, authority rights etc. In other words, they were being discriminated against. The SC made it right. Besides, the hetero marriage that 60+% piss upon, treat like a sham and enter into willy nilly is defended to the hilt by religious is the epitomy of hypocracy. Shoe meet foot. And what school are you talking about? The School of Dumb Ideas? The School of Distorting The Charter Of Rights? The same school the liberal left judges of our supreme court went to to learn how to read the Charter of Rights to suit their own ends? You go back to school. There are NO merits! The issue of the rights of a homosexual couple living together has nothing to do with defining that union as a marriage. You can call it a Union of Sodomy, or Poofsters' Progress, for all I care.... There is no such thing as discrimination against an illegitimate union. The courts knew that, so they legitimized homosexual relationships. They acquiesced and allowed it to be called "marriage." If the courts had done the right thing, and legitimized it by making it a civil union between homosexuals, without calling it marriage, they would've accomplished the same thing without degrading the institution of marriage.

CALGARY - The founder of Canada's first national Christian television network has resigned after admitting to an "extra-marital relationship." Dick Dewert started the network in Lethbridge in 1995 with his wife, Joan, who has also resigned to "stand with her husband," a news release issued from the Miracle Channel said. "We do not condone his behaviour," said Ray Block, who has been named CEO to replace Dewert. This behaviour does not represent our stand on morality issues. His resignation was the right thing for him to do." http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news...25-a969d05b4d38 ***************** Well, when I read the title of this topic, I had the impression that this guy was stripped of his robe and kicked out. The way that word "DEFROCKED" was used was kinda misleading. But actually, this man (never heard of him or this particular ministry btw), resigned. The first few lines of the article reveal a lot of positive things....adhering to Christian belief. He admitted to adultery. He resigned, doing the right thing for the ministry and for himself. His wife, the human who was most grievously hurt in this affair, stood by him. This indicate forgiveness. Any woman who got cheated on would most probably agree that forgiveness is hard to dole out in this matter, let alone standing by the man who betrayed you. The CEO stressed that this behaviour is not condoned. That the man sinned proved only one thing: he succumbed to temptation. Politicians and even Prime Minister get caught in corruptions and scandals...and yet wouldn't have the decency to voluntarily resign. What's the big deal about this issue then?

What are you saying? That he's not human? That humans don't sin?

You see what? I think you don't see. Religion does not equal church. Christianity is a religion. Church is a building. Denominations occupy church buildings and call themselves what they like. Anglican, Roman Catholic, or whatever, but they're all Christians, in our discussion. Those occupants practice Christianity, their religion, well or not well. As far as the personal god goes, that's a modern secular concept. Worshipping the Self.

What? Of course I'm saying Anglicanism is man-made and not divine! So is Roman Catholicism. So is every other Christian church. So is every institution that claims to speak for God. God did not proscribe the rites of the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Church or any other church. They're the inventions of men. For good or for bad. They were designed by men to worship their God, in whatever way they felt appropriate. Sometimes it wasn't. And what is this He or she? Eh?

Betsy: i have no wish to do a SSM debate, as stated, there is no debate, it is common sense, to let ALL consenting adults, marry the person, they wish to, the person, they love. There is no common sense in denying that right because of, some peoples, religious beliefs. You claimed it was about the word "marriage". The word marriage, by persons like yourself is attached to some religious signifigance (from god, with god's blessing, etc.,) That is why you wish that gays did not use that word. As you do not see a SSM , as a 'marriage' in the eye's of God. I am quite confident, I am correct on this, but, feel free.... Definitions of marriage on the Web: * the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); "a long and happy marriage"; * two people who are married to each other; "his second marriage was happier than the first"; "a married couple without love" * the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony; "their marriage was conducted in the chapel," editted to add: or at the jp's office, or in the synagogue the mosque, in the park, in the mountains, on a plane * a close and intimate union; "the marriage of music and dance"; "a marriage of ideas" marriage: defined is an intimate union of two. Is a marriage of ideas or music or words not a marriage, it most certainly is! There is no spiritual connotation, except the one organized religion gives it, to claim ownership of it, to negate SSM. PERIOD! That's why I said my stance on SSM, was pure common sense. There is no reason to deny the right, to some consenting adults, while extending it to others. Like i said, I don't want to get into another marriage debate, but I have to ask, what is the significance of the definitions of marriage you found on the web? They're essentially the same as a modern dictionary definition. Dictionaries describe CURRENT usage. So what? It hardly resolves the issue. Unless of course, you're music and dance. You forgot the marriage of Figaro. Marriage had been re-defined in the last few years, by a liberal supreme court in our dysfunctional dominion. Declarations don't change essential characters of our society. By the way, homosexuals have always had the same right to marry as anyone else. That they didn't want to marry someone of the opposite sex doesn't mean they didn't have the right to. The suggestion that they didn't have the right that we had is nonsense. They just didn't want to exercise their right tp marry. Instead they chose an alternative behaviour and then demanded that it be called marriage. Typically, our supreme court went for it hook, line and sinker.

NO. I am not advocating that. I don't find it is fostering division, nor encouraging segragation. I am the child of an immigrant. Believe me when I say this country, doesn't need more of what you are calling for. I'm glad to hear that you're not a liberal through and through, it's nice to know you're not advocating control of all those who don't agree with you. But you must admit that advocating a woman's right to kill her child and supporting multi-culturalism is supporting misguided liberal ideologies. They're based on a relative moralism that allows each individual in society to do his/her own thing. Ironically that individualism is tempered with a heavy stick of control. You were the one who brought up the word "compartmentalize"...and I only gave you a good example of it: multiculturalism.

After being elected and consecrated by their church, they are being shunned from its gatherings. The Anglican Church can't seem to make up its mind here. If there's a divine being whose rules they're following, He or She should really make their intentions clearer. These government supported institutions (through tax-exemptions and freedom of religion reverence) are illustrating hatred and bigotry toward homosexuals. Shame on the Anglican Church for being so disrespectful to these bishops. You know why the Anglican Church keeps flipflopping? It's about numbers! When their quorum at their meetings is dominantly homosexuals, the decisions come down for homosexual behaviour in the church, and in society. When the quorum, by some luck or trickery, is dominantly heterosexual, the criticisms of homosexuality in the church, and I hope in society, is the flavor of the day. If the foxes are voting in keeping the hen-house door open, we know the fate of the chickens.

Of course I didn't say the Summerians were primitive. I said, many primitive cultures also have flood stories. You should consider this: the Sumerians, the Assyrians, as well as the Semitic tribes, and other cultures, I'm sure, all lived in the same area, what we now call the Middle East. That they had similar mythologies doesn't indicate that one copied from the other. Even though these civilizations reached their peaks at different times, I would conclude that their mythologies are based on the same historical references. There's no indication that they shared their ideas in some mythical Mesapotamian library. The Jews had the good fortune of having the Authoritative version. Lol. Cheers!