Disturbing news from Philly, not Scout related

[Rooster7]

...nor do you really understand the true meaning of God's word by quoting a line of scripture out of context, which you so often do.

 

Yes, you've said that before...but you never quote me and demonstrate how my use of a bible verse is out of context. You merely throw the accusation out as if claiming it, makes it so.

[Rooster7]

...nor do you really understand the true meaning of God's word by quoting a line of scripture out of context, which you so often do.

 

Yes, you've said that before...but you never quote me and demonstrate how my use of a bible verse is out of context. You merely throw the accusation out as if claiming it, makes it so.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I realize when this is read that people will wonder what I am trying to say but Trevorum made a statement earlier about Jesus that interested me, Let me quote him,

 

"You're right! That's because he was a liberal who spread a seditious message of social change which threatened those who held political and military power."

 

So I tried to find out from the four eye witness accounts about Jesus' message. I integrated the accounts into a story, which I will not publish at this time. I used the arrest and trials of Jesus to confirm/disconfirm Trev's statement.

 

Jesus preached openly to the Jewish people and leaders. His message was, in part, about his being a King but not in this world. Since his kingdom was spiritual, it was not a threat to the Jewish or the Roman leaders of this world. He stated that to them. After three trials, there was absolutely no evidence or any witnesses/testimony against him. The Roman leader stated that Jesus was innocent. The Jewish leaders could not find any direct fault. Judas recognized Jesus' innocence and fate but much too late. Jesus' followers denied and deserted him, so he stood alone and without a defense. On the first count of sedition, he was acquitted by all of the parties involved but it did not stop the execution.

 

The social change did not appear to be anything different than the truths found in the Jewish Testament. He said he had a spiritual army that could fight the arrest and I suppose the Roman legions as well but he was more involved in accounting and fulfilling the prophecy in the Testament. It could only be done by using the very words of the Jews that had him crucified. So, he was not promoting anything other than their scriptures. The social change must have been to ask them to return to their own heritage/religion.

 

I have found that being a liberal means that someone doesn't agree with you and being a conservative means that you are right. Also, I suppose there is a spiritual continuum of beliefs of either a "faith" based message (conservative) and those who have a "works" based message (liberal). So if we use that as our standard, then Jesus prayed and used spiritual words or faith and obviously had works, healing being one. So, according to the story I put together, he was both a liberal and a conservative.

 

His ministry did not in any way immediately change the seats of power. It took several hundred years for that to change. (* the first Council of the Apostles in A.D. 50, and the Second Ecumenical Council 381 A.D., the fall of Rome in 424 A.D. with Attila, and the Jews have returned to their land and are currently in charge) If there was a threat, then it was a perceived threat that must have made everyone sigh a deep breath of relief when it was all over.

 

I apologize again for straying from the topic but my interest got the best of me, thanks to Trev.

 

FB

 

[NJCubScouter]

OGE, writing about events in the 80s in Illinois, says:

 

No one was ever arrsted for speaking their minds...

 

Nor were the protesters in Philadelphia arrested for speaking their minds, if you believe the police. The "expressive" portion of their conduct may be exposing them to a higher penalty, but that's a different issue. If they were simply speaking their minds, there would have been nothing to arrest them for.

[evmori]

Merlyn,

No lie. Just my observations. Has the ACLU gotten involved? If not, why not?

 

Rooster7,

I would love to sit down with you & have a coffee & talk!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[NWScouter]

Fuzzy,

Your linking of liberal Christians with work based and conservative ones with faith based is simplistic and basically wrong. The stress on Law and Gospel by both is a mix in both camps. There are social gospel liberals that stress the works of serving the poor and judge their salvation by how many good works they do. On the conservative side, there are many who stress following the Laws especially in sexual matters and you never hear the Gospel. To them it seems that you most work your way to heaven by perfect adherence to the Law.

 

It has always been a balancing act between Romans Faith not works shall save, and James -- Faith without works is dead.

 

[firstpusk]

"In short, if ever the pot called the kettle blackthis is it!"

 

God's love if I've ever heard it. Have you no shame?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed writes:

No lie. Just my observations. Has the ACLU gotten involved? If not, why not?

 

That has nothing to do with your original statement, which was a lie:

 

Don't expect the ACLU to get involved. They only support atheists when their rights are stepped on.

 

If you ever decide to stop lying, I'll stop calling you a liar.

[Fuzzy Bear]

NJ,

I agree that simplicity is important. Thanks for the tip.

FB

 

[evmori]

Ed writes:

No lie. Just my observations. Has the ACLU gotten involved? If not, why not?

Merlyn writes:

That has nothing to do with your original statement, which was a lie:

Don't expect the ACLU to get involved. They only support atheists when their rights are stepped on.

If you ever decide to stop lying, I'll stop calling you a liar.

 

Merlyn,

My original statement was my opinion. You might not like it but it isn't a lie! I don't lie, sir. And I will ask again! Has the ACLU got involved in this? If not, why?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed writes:

My original statement was my opinion. You might not like it but it isn't a lie!

 

No, your original statement was NOT an opinion, it was a supposedly "factual" statement which knew was incorrect - in other words, a lie. You stated that the ACLU only "support(s) atheists when their rights are stepped on," which is trivially shown to be false by merely finding one instance where the ACLU has supported a non-atheist when their rights were stepped on.

 

I don't lie, sir.

 

You clearly do, which is why I keep calling you a liar. Because you quite clearly ARE a liar. Do you work for the Greater Alabama Council?

[evmori]

Merlyn,

You need some fiber in your diet to loosen you up a bit!

 

So when will the ACLU be getting involved in this case?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed, when did Marcavage ask the ACLU to get involved?

 

http://www.jewishexponent.com/Zoom.asp?storyID=23957&szparent=586&pubID=298&Archive=

...

Although Repent America wants to make Marcavages case a constitutional issue, the organization hasnt sought out the American Civil Liberties Union, largely because it considers ACLU anti-Christian, according to Marcavage.

 

Nevertheless, the ACLUs Pennsylvania office has been following the case closely. Vic Walczak, the ACLUs state legal director, said that the issues surrounding the case are not clear-cut.

 

Other Supreme Court decisions allow groups to exclude those with dissenting messages from public space during an event, he said. But since Outfest takes place over eight blocks, the issue becomes more complicated.

 

At the heart of the matter is whether the protesters removal was illegal, and if Marcavages felony charge was excessive, said Walczak.

[evmori]

Good way to dodge involvement!

[packsaddle]

Going back to the original statement by evmori, "Don't expect the ACLU to get involved. They only support atheists when their rights are stepped on.", it has taken me a while to digest what the problem was. The reason is that there's more than one way to interpret the statement.

When I initially read the statement, I understood that the ACLU only supported atheists (or anyone else) under those conditions when atheists' (or anyone's) rights are stepped on. And I agreed, thinking that of course those are the necessary conditions under which ACLU supports anyone. This was not a problem in my view, because it seemed inclusive. I did wonder a little - just why Ed was informing us of this obvious fact.

But then I realized that perhaps Ed meant that the ACLU normally doesn't support atheists at all, but reluctantly comes to their aid when their rights are stepped on. This somewhat more restrictive view was less inclusive, but didn't make sense coming from Ed because 1) I think he doesn't much care for the ACLU, and 2) he would seem to be expressing sympathy for the atheists. H'mm.

 

But Merlyn's subsequent response seemed to be a non sequitur. It was much later that I realized that the statement could be also interpreted to mean that Ed thinks that ACLU only supports atheists, PERIOD - Especially when atheists' rights are stepped on.

Does anyone else see the difference between these interpretations?

And I'm still wondering, Ed, which way did you mean it? It is clearly confusing to me.

 

I find myself wanting to defend Rooster7 in this thread. Anyone who has followed the various topics should well know that Rooster and I differ on many topics. However, I do believe that Rooster is sincere in what he writes and basically means well. Yes, he makes some mistakes and sometimes pixxxxx off a few people, me included. Yes, he thumps the Bible. And yes, he sometimes seems mean-spirited. Even if all of that was true, it would not be a justification for attacking him (and I admit I've been guilty of this as well), as opposed to his ideas. I do believe that if we were all really sitting together around an actual campfire and speaking face-to-face, our statements would more often be interpreted correctly, because we could hear the tone, inflection, cadence, emphasis, all the things we listen for in a conversation but are lost in written words. And there would be fewer hurt feelings. Am I wrong? Perhaps Bob White would still be with us. I guess I could be wrong.