We are Charlie

[Theresa Tennyson]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

We don't have freedom of speech. We only have it

up to a point

,

---

You're right.  And it should be scaring the heck out of people.

---

Actually our freedom to speak is absolute as long as someone isn't standing close enough to physically stop our mouths and breath. We can say anything... at least once.

However, we can't control the reaction or actions of those hearing us. Laws are words on paper and can't actually cause or prevent anything in and of themselves.

That's the way it's always been and that's the way it will always be. So it's a good idea to choose your words carefully.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Ceka Cianci wrote:

Can a citizen of the U.S. who is not in a government position violate another citizens first ammendment rights?

---

I'm no lawyer, but according to the Constitution, only Congress can violate the First Amendment, which starts out "Congress shall make no law...".

<snip>

 

---

That was true until the passing of the 14th Amendment.  But the

Incorporation Doctrine

has probably been the most hotly debated issue in Court history.**  But under the 14th Amendment the Court has held that the Bill of Rights applies to the States.

"

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

 

**Roe vs Wade hinged on it.  The striking down of many State gun control laws has hinged on it.  Etc, etc.

---

You snipped too soon, Perrie! I said this...

"The first amendment is a contract between Congress (and because the States ratified the Constitution,

that includes state and local legislators

) and the Government, not between Congress and the Public."

I will admit to not knowing it took until the 14th Amendment to make it clear to the States that they were covered by First.

;-).

---

Yes I missed that but even that is not an absolute.  A brief look at the Incorporation Doctine will show you what has and has not been incorporated.

And the States in many instances have fought against this Doctrine basing their arguments on the 10th.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

And to say that it made it "clear to the States," ummmm, look at the dates for many of the rulings in that link.  The States have fought against this Doctrine very much.

This is also a central to the issues people raise about Courts "legislating from the Bench."

As I said, probably the most hotly and also most frequently debated issue in the Courts.

[Aethelwine]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Matthew 6:14,15, "For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.,"

That does not negate the verse I quoted (1 John 1:9), and neither does the verse I quoted negate that. They work perfectly together. Put them together and we see that Christians forgive those who sin against them and repent of it. I.e. since God forgives those

who confess their sins

, so should Christians.

---

It is a direct negation.

You say there is a qualifier to the requirement to forgive, and yet there in Mark 6:14, the Lord's Prayer itself.. there is no qualifier. The requirement is to forgive those who sin against you, not only those who have sinned against you and repented.

Relooking at your John passage I can see that through confession of sins, we are forgiven... therefore if we are unable to forgive something and confess that, then with faith we will be forgiven.  But I am not clear that is what you were saying? If so then I misunderstood.

 

[Maryanne Solo]

It's quite ok for christians to apologise for stuffs because Roman Catholics dont have to apologise for anything

And if you dont like it I'm going to huff & puff and blow your house down.

I might go to midnight mass again one day. I used to love that.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Aethelwine wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Matthew 6:14,15, "For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.,"

That does not negate the verse I quoted (1 John 1:9), and neither does the verse I quoted negate that. They work perfectly together. Put them together and we see that Christians forgive those who sin against them and repent of it. I.e. since God forgives those

who confess their sins

, so should Christians.

---

It is a direct negation.

You say there is a qualifier to the requirement to forgive, and yet there in Mark 6:14, the Lord's Prayer itself.. there is no qualifier. The requirement is to forgive those who sin against you, not only those who have sinned against you and repented.

Relooking at your John passage I can see that through confession of sins, we are forgiven... therefore if we are unable to forgive something and confess that, then with faith we will be forgiven.  But I am not clear that is what you were saying? If so then I misunderstood.

 

---

I keep telling myself not to get involved in Bible discussions here.  But here we go.

Maybe he knew that his audience already understood that forgiveness was predicated on a condition, that your neighbor needed to ask forgiveness first, so there was no need for him to re-explain that to them.

Otherwise you then have a big problem with John 20:23:

"If you forgive anyone's sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

So what would be the conditions for not forgiving?  It would seem rather trite or capricious for him not to forgive someone simply because I refused to forgive them.

[valerie Inshan]

I am afraid I am not brilliant enough to keep on talking here..You have impressed me; all of you, with your intelligence and common sense. You held a torch upon ignorance, sometimes bright, sometimes darker. But in all cases, you added your stone to the edifice. And this is all what matters. It was the spirit of this thread. Thank you all. 

Edited for typos

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Satire is written for the purpose of making people laugh. It may sometimes make valid points, but it's still done to poke fun at something, or someone, in order to make people laugh. Imo, making people laugh is sometimes not a valid,

good, or acceptable reason to poke fun at something or someone.

---

Some definitions...

Satire - the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.

Stupidity - behavior that shows a lack of good sense or judgment. The quality of being stupid or unintelligent.

Vice - a practice, behavior, or habit generally considered immoral, sinful, depraved, or degrading in the associated society.

There's a difference between satire and sarcasm in that sarcasm is generally off-the-cuff and targets a particular individual. Satire is often more considered, more indirect, and targets an idea or behavior. Both methods are often intended to provoke, though often with different intent.

Satire is not always just intended to make people laugh. It's sometime tries to effect or impede change. Satire often ridicules things that can't be easily or quickly changed, otherwise it's got a short shelf-life. To banish stupidity, you must educate. To drop a vice, you must acknowlege it and work to escape it. That won't happen with one jab. Satire works by exposing incongruities and absurdities, which often make us laugh, and sometimes make us think.

When I satirize a behavior or idea, I usually do not expect to change it directly. In many cases I don't expect or even want to change it at all. My satire is sometimes a tease about a silly behavior I find endearing. In that case, I satirize to get a laugh. When I do wish to effect a change, or at least make a point, my satire is offered to those on the fence. The laughter will come from those already in my choir, but the change will come from those who recognize a truth in the satire and get down off the fence. If satire drives the opposition more firmly into their corner... and that may desired, then it's the people on the fence who'll make the difference.

Charlie Hebdo may have got a lot of people down off the fence, perhaps to find that the fences aren't exactly where they thought.

Satire often uses irony... and sometimes produces it.

[LlazarusLlong]

I would be grateful if everyone posting here could amend their posts to spell amendment correctly, thereby giving some small credence to any argument that they might hope to make.

[LlazarusLlong]

---

Maryanne Solo wrote:

Roman Catholics dont have to apologise for anything

---

What do meaningless penances following confession represent if not apologies?

[Perrie Juran]

---

LlazarusLlong wrote:

I would be grateful if everyone posting here could amend their posts to spell amendment correctly, thereby giving some small credence to any argument that they might hope to make.

---

Ah, you caught me in a spelling lapse.

Well, bully for you!

But I'm feeling slightly cantankerous at the moment so I think I'll let them be.

Do you think you can forgive me for this?

Or is this an unforgivable sin in your book?

I changed my mind.  Because you asked so nicely I have corrected those places where I misspelled 'amendment.'

I also took the time to clean my keyboard and fix my sticky "M."

[LlazarusLlong]

Cantankerous is good!

Curmudgeonly is even better!!

Please accept my thanks, along with those of the Founding Fathers who got it so wrong that their descendents have had to make thirty-three (more or less) subsquent amendments - none of which mention anything to do with computers.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Aethelwine wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Matthew 6:14,15, "For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.,"

That does not negate the verse I quoted (1 John 1:9), and neither does the verse I quoted negate that. They work perfectly together. Put them together and we see that Christians forgive those who sin against them and repent of it. I.e. since God forgives those

who confess their sins

, so should Christians.

---

It is a direct negation.

You are mistaken. Suggesting that it's a direct negation appears to indicate that you don't believe the Bible is the word of God. I won't knowingly get into a purely academic discussion about it, but I'll continue for this post.

You say there is a qualifier to the requirement to forgive, and yet there in Mark 6:14, the Lord's Prayer itself.. there is no qualifier. The requirement is to forgive those who sin against you, not only those who have sinned against you and repented.

Either you accept the Bible as being the word of God or you don't, If you don't, then you are discussing it academically and I'll drop out and leave you to it. If you do, then you accept that all of it is the word of God, including the verse 1 John 1:9.. So let's look at it.

It says, "

If we confess our sins He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins

". What if we don't confess our sins? Does He still forgive them? It doesn't look like it, does it? Therefore, according to the word of God, we need to confess our sins in order to receive His forgiveness for them.

Now let's look at Matthew 6:14,15 ("

For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins

"), which you point to. Btw, it's not "the Lord's prayer itself" as you thought

 It's also the word of God so it must also be true. As you said, the confession qualifier isn't there but does that mean that we don't need to confess our sins, and still we'll get forgiveness? Of course not. If we have no need to confess, why does 1 John 1:9 say we need to?

Since the whole of the Bible is the word of God, and understanding needs to take all of it into account, it becomes clear that we do need to confess our sins to receive forgiveness for them, and that our "

heavenly father will also forgive

" us if we do, as long as we also extend forgiveness to those who sin against us. If we are not willing to forgive, then He is not willing to forgive us.

God doesn't expect more of us than He is willing to give. If He only forgives us when we confess our sins, then we are good to only forgive others when they confess them. If we don't, then he won't forgive us.

So there is no conflict between the verses. None of them negate any of the others. each of them highlights different aspects of the same thing, and full understanding needs it all.

Btw, if you're somwhere in the middle, and believe that some bits of the Bible are the word of God, and some bits aren't, forget it. I can't discuss it with someone who picks and chooses.

Relooking at your John passage I can see that through confession of sins, we are forgiven... therefore if we are unable to forgive something and confess that, then with faith we will be forgiven.  But I am not clear that is what you were saying? If so then I misunderstood.

  

That's not what I meant.

---

One more thing. Even the verses we've quoted don't fully cover it. The word 'confess' can be misunderstood when read in isolation. Taking the whole of the Bible into account - specifically the New Testament - it becomes clear that simple confession isn't enough. I.e "Ok, I did it, and I'm glad I did it" is a confession, but there's no remorse, regret, or repentance in it. Forgiveness needs remorse/regret/repentance.

And finally - a question. Do you believe that the Bible is the word of God, or are you just discussing this academically? If it's just academic on your part, I won't discuss it any further, so please tell me.

 

ETA: Cancel that question. I withdraw it. I just realised that it's obvious you don't accept the Bible as being the word of God because nobody who accepts it would suggest that one bit doesn't apply doesn't apply because another bit doesn't include it. That being the case, there is nothing for us to discuss and I withdraw from this discussion.

[Aethelwine]

Phil, I do consider myself broadly Christian, but our views are so divergent it is for the best not to go further with it.

[Phil Deakins]

Agreed

[Perrie Juran]

---

LlazarusLlong wrote:

Cantankerous is good!

Curmudgeonly is even better!!

Please accept my thanks, along with those of the Founding Fathers who got it so wrong that their descendents have had to make thirty-three (more or less) subsquent amendments - none of which mention anything to do with computers.

---

Nor do they mention farming, silversmithing, quilting, reading, writing or arithmetic.

Though I might have to redact the last three because freedom of the press was not to be infringed on.

[Maryanne Solo]

---

LlazarusLlong wrote:

---

Maryanne Solo wrote:

Roman Catholics dont have to apologise for anything

---

What do meaningless penances following confession represent if not apologies?

---

   Now let us see, which iteration of extinguisehd troll might this be?

   My last reply to you may have been 3 years ago.

   Based upon the value of your posts what follows below is my next:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    Bring back the Waisted one, the true hero of Le fora.

   .

    KThxBai.

[Maryanne Solo]

I will also leave the typo for you to relish.

[LlazarusLlong]

Like many here, and excluding those, like you, suffering from delusions of adequacy, comprehension of your apparently random outpourings seems impossible without giving them considerably more attention than they could possibly deserve.

Or perhaps it's because it's necessary to be in a similar chemically deranged state to understand your posts.

Oh, and you must mean distinguished, rather than extinguished, since I have certainly not been put out in any sense.