WordWolf

Shelley Winters

Pete's Dragon

Mickey Rooney

"It's a knockout.

If looks could kill, they probably will"

"Andre has a red flag, Chiang Ching's is blue.

They all have hills to fly them on except for Lin Tai Yu.

Dressing up in costumes, playing silly games,

Hiding out in tree-tops, and shouting out rude names"

My first thought concerning that clue was that it meant one of the Enterprise crew

that met NextGen crew.

That would have meant McCoy, Spock or Scotty.

However,

that second quote was vintage Quark, and Quark's strictly DS9,

and NONE of them appeared on DS9.

(In the normal sense.)

Further,

there were 3 different Klingons from TOS that appeared later in DS9.

One of them must have made the first statement.

I'm betting it was the Dahar Master, who may have been anti-establishment,

if memory serves.

I think that was Kor. (John Calicos of Battlestar:Galactica fame.)

He appeared in "Blood Oath", but Worf wasn't on the DS9 crew yet.

So, I'm going to say this was when they searched for

"the Sword of Kahless"

(snip)

Stop twisting words and insulting becuase you cant refute that fact.

(snip)

read it again and call yourself a liar or full of ignorance

Now that's hardly posting with kindness. <_<

The following is from the front page of the forums:

"please be courteous to fellow posters. Disagree all you want, but respect the fact that someone else may feel as strongly about their ideas as you do about your own. Please don't make it personal. A lively discussions of ideas is both more polite and more relevant."

I never once said i do not trust the bible .

Word wolf

i realize you try to put the thread together in a concise way .. but you know the bible is a crazy book for example it says an foot could talk to a man when he was being wipped!

so now i can know for sure if i beat my horse it will complain to me about the pain i inflicted?

Now,

many people would consider this a vote of no-confidence, since it calls

"the Bible a crazy book", and implies the Bible guarantees that EVERY beating of a

horse will result in it talking to the hitter.

If that's not what you meant, then you might consider the message you sent.

Attica! Attica!

"If looks could kill, they probably will"

"Dressing up in costumes, playing silly games

Hiding out in tree-tops, and shouting out rude names"

pond,

I question whether or not we can get somewhere substantial in this discussion

if you're going to keep "banging the drum."

I mean, having a strong opinion is fine. Having a closed mind on the subject

is technically acceptable. However, having decided that, your ability to

CONTRIBUTE to the discussion is therefore limited.

I mean, once you've posted once

"I don't trust the Bible" (a point you already made with me),

"I don't think the Bible addresses this at all" (which means the rest of the

discussion is on us to demonstrate otherwise, you're excused until we

can demonstrate it)

"I don't think it's ever murder" (which we haven't gotten to yet, really)

and

"I think it should be up to the courts (which is a flat statement of opinion),

then everything else is either restatements of same at best,

or-at worst- distractions from the rest of the discussion.

We're TRYING to discuss what the Bible CAN tell us on this subject.

The essence of the discussion, then, rests on 2 things:

A) what does the Bible say about when a fetus is considered a human?

B) what does the Bible say about punishments for ending a fetus?

Those are technically 2 different issues.

We've seen some interesting things on both issues so far,

but the interruptions we've seen to both have been making it difficult to make

sizeable progress.

I mean, you don't have to believe the Bible at all, nor respect it,

but can you at least respect US enough to allow us to discuss our opinions of

the Bible? That is EXACTLY what this thread is about, and that's why it's

in the DOCTRINAL forum. We're discussing DOCTRINE.

If this thread disturbs you, you can always skip the thread, or skip the

entire FORUM. (I skip threads when I think they don't benefit me.)

Is it really a lot to ask, to allow us to simply proceed on-topic and see where

the search leads us?

Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle

John Cleese

Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Let's see if someone can pick the most likely actor out after Cleese....

This time, I have the PROOF the GSC is under attack!

BEHOLD THE PROOF!

Oops. Didn't notice I forgot to name the band.

But I do have a copy of "Sur la Mer". :)

=========

Next song:

"If looks could kill, they probably will"

"I Know You're Out There Somewhere

Somewhere, somewhere...

I know I'll find you somehow

And somehow I'll return again to you."

Technically, VeganXTC is correct in that I did not lay a foundation for my statement.

When we get there, I'll see if there is grounds for it, or if it is just an unsupported claim,

which would mean it should just be dismissed.

There are no victims in this classroom.

Is that "Dangerous Minds"?

Shore Leave

I think

Correct.

Go.

Fine.

Next clue.

"The more complex the mind, the greater the need for the simplicity of play."

I see the two as interrelated, as well,

but I don't have anything truly cogent to add yet.

Word wolf

i realize you try to put the thread together in a concise way .. but you know the bible is a crazy book for example it says an foot could talk to a man when he was being wipped!

so now i can know for sure if i beat my horse it will complain to me about the pain i inflicted?

That was stated to be a miracle. If God wants a brick wall to start talking, I'm confident it will,

and expect it NOT to do so for anything short of that.

the fact elizabeth called the promised child a "babe" does not really qualify as "premediated murder" in and of itself does it now?

i see no more conclusion in that leap than i do all absence of "fruit" qualifies as a abortion.

The narration calls John the Baptist a babe, 6 months "old" in development, and said he

responded to the imminent Messiah's approach, kinda. (His response was definite,

what he responded to is complicated.)

God called him a baby. A baby's a child. If he were thus killed, it's child-murder.

I explained it in detail more than once in this thread.

Please review my posts.

If you still don't get it, then I can't help you. I made it as simple as I am able.

Interesting. T-Bone.

I expect we'll be examining some verses from there soon.

You went on and made my case even better than I did WW. That is the main reason why time spent on the Internet has matched and for the most part out-paced the time that used to be spent in front of the TV set - the Internet is far more addictive than the "boob tube" ever was. The reason the Internet is highly addictive is because the "user" can selectively tune out whatever unpleasant elements he or she doesn't like and interact with the more pleasant ones.

[Actually, YOU just proved that's possible by completely tuning out my citation of some of the

thousands of POSITIVE uses of the internet. You selectively skipped it since you're dedicated

to painting it as an unredeemable evil that's sucking society down.

That it's superior to television is due to the abilities to gather information,

and to interact as opposed to sitting and just accepting the tv show contents.]

The reality of life is: Genuine relationships contain conflict.

[if that's the defining element WTH is determined to make of it,

then my online relationships are MORE genuine than my offline ones!]

The sad truth is the addicted Internet user ends up paying a very high price for this distorted reality of life and living much like the addicted drug user does.

[Ah, the dangers of another new technology.

The printing press can be used to spread lies or print pornography.

The telephone can waste the day, and be used for adult chat-lines and "phone sex."

The automobile can more efficiently carry a man to brothels and houses of ill repute,

increasing his access to them.

The radio spreads evil rock and roll music with its pelvic gyrations, like Elvis.

The television lowers standards with its poor bill of fare.

And the computer is worse than all of those.

So, the Amish are the last REAL people left.

WTH, since he's been corrupting himself posting here and being online,

is no doubt preparing to join them and go offline,

demonstrating the courage of his convictions.]

Perhaps it applies to some people, but it didn't apply to me.

I was looking for answers.

For my first few meetings, I sat closest to the door, waiting for a sign to run.

To a degree, I bought into what we all bought into, but I also had points where

I saw mistakes and errors, and saw fit to address problems with leadership.

When lcm fired all the local leadership, I went to ROA 89 and observed for

several days, and was thus able to make an INFORMED decision, having heard

from both sides about themselves. The leadership among those who left

learned I still addressed problems with them when I saw them.

Ultimately, after I faded out, I doubt few of them missed me.

So, I don't fit the pattern described, which may only mean I'm an exception to a rule.

Which is normal for me. :)

Well, before people post ALL my favourite episodes, I'll go.

It IS my turn, after all.

(I wonder if they told Brooks to pronounce that name "Peee-CARD" or if it was his idea.)

Ok, next quote.

"I'm sorry.

I didn't mean to say the Enterprise should be hauling garbage.

I meant to say the Enterprise should be hauled off as garbage."

Let's see who can chime in first. :)

So then,

for those of us who are trying to determine what information the Bible would impart to those of us who

consider it authoritative,

We are still left with the original question,

or-reworded slightly-

"What information is stated in the Bible itself that would instruct us on the topic of abortion?"

Now, this is a subject that has many hard feelings, strong opinions, hurts, misconceptions,

and other complications.

I won't pretend that we'll reach a definitive, brief answer that should be considered self-evident.

At least, if we DO, I'll be VERY surprised.

With some work, and a little teamwork, I believe we will come A LOT CLOSER to an answer

than we had when we started.

When addressing the subject of "when is an abortion acceptable?",

the primary relevant question, I think, becomes "when does a fetus go from a 'collection

of cells' to a 'baby' or person?"

The general opinions as to when an abortion is acceptable seem to all be divided based

on the answers to that specific question.

For those people who say "a fetus is not a person until it takes its first breath",

then abortion would be acceptable reasonably any time BEFORE "first breath".

(For the sake of discussion, I'll call that one at "anytime before the mother goes

into labour." Although that's technically before "first breath", I'll give them the benefit

of the doubt on labour being the stage when the soon-to-be-person will emerge normally

and become a person.)

For those people who say "a fetus is a person at the moment of conception",

then abortion would be acceptable reasonably only before the moment of conception,

which would mean that an abortion would not be possible, since before conception,

there is nothing TO abort.

(It would be a separate discussion as to whether a "morning-after pill" is acceptable

under that definition.)

For everyone else, the answers do not come so easy, and the answers span a gamut of

responses, and a gamut of reasons.

Going back to our OWN discussion, based on Luke 1, it seems that the Bible would call

a fetus a "baby" by 6 months IF NO LATER, which would indicate the third trimester

addresses a baby, a person, which would mean that an abortion at that time would

unquestionably be a premeditated murder.

So, we've eliminated 3 months off the potential target-time, just off a handful of verses

in Luke. We've trimmed the later end of the timeframe.

On the other hand, the old "call a fetus a thing" business was based on a poor mistranslation

of a verse in the King James Version which was introduced between the Stephens Text

and the English version. So, we don't have the luxury of saying that a fetus starts as a

"thing" and becomes a baby.

We also have not proven a fetus does NOT start as a "thing", either.

Perhaps another verse will clear that up one way or another.

Will we find a short, clear, clever answer? Doubtful.

Will the search be instructive and add to our knowledge?

I think many of us, if not most of us, believe it will.

Me, I didn't realize the 6-month thing before this discussion started, so I for one think

I will, and I trust others may see the same.

"You hit me! Picard never hit me!"

"I'm not Picard."

That was Q (complete with cheezy moustache) in a 19th century boxing ring,

bareknuckle-fighting against Ben Sisko in "Q-LESS."

It also had the only in-episode criticism of the DS9 crew not having all answers

at their fingertips all the time.

(Well, they were not all the Federation's best and brightest,

as the Enterprise-D supposedly had,

nor were they using up-to-date machinery-

1/2 their systems were jury-rigged between 2 different technologies

(Federation and Cardassian).

By the way, Trekkies: Today is the fortieth anniversary of the first Star Trek episode. Aired September 8, 1966 at 7:30 EST-and it was a Thursday. Not to interrupt the flow, but on this auspicious occasion, anyone know what the name of the first episode name?

Pardon the derail.

The not-aired series pilot, "the Cage" (with even cheezier special effects than the rest of

the show, and a cruder opening sequence) doesn't count, since that didn't air until,

I think, the 1990s. Segments were later used in both parts of "the Menagerie."

For some reason, I sometimes mistakenly think "the Menagerie" was the series

official opening. But it wasn't. Matching the opening monologue, it was

"Where No Man Has Gone Before."

CORRECTION: "Charlie-X" aired before "WNMHGB."

They weren't filmed in that order, but that was the airing order.

Frankly, I don't see much difference between the plots-

both have humans with Q-like powers,

only one's just some citizen and the other's an Enterprise crew-member.

Must be why I keep confusing THOSE 2 episodes.

FURTHER CORRECTION: Hiway29's right, "THE MAN-TRAP" aired before both,

and was THE first episode AIRED.

Good thing I don't do this for a living....

As to whether or not there is a specific verse saying

"And God said, behold, abortion is acceptable up to the moment labour begins"

or

"And God said, behold, a fetus is a child from the beginning of the first month"

or anything in between,

there is no specific verse.

I believe almost all of us can respond to that factlet by saying

"DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHH."

That having been said,

those who actually believe the Bible has value in a more-than-interesting-cultural-guidebook

manner, that is, who believe it was designed to communicate information from God to man,

those people believe that its utility is more than the sum total of the verses,

that its guidelines are usable for concepts not extant at the time the books were written.

For those who believe that the "all life and godliness" referred to as having been given us

also refers to the Bible

( 2 Peter 1:3

"According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue")

as was taught in twi, and is held by ex-twi'ers,

the idea of just shrugging one's shoulders and saying "no verse addresses it explicitly,

therefore we have no idea" should be considered both lazy and cowardly.

This brand of inconsistency (one might even say "hypocrisy", for this is an inconsistently-applied

standard) is compounded when one declares that the godly position is one thing, while hiding

behind a shrug when discussion of the verses comes up.

The concept that a fetus is NOT a baby-and thus not a PERSON and thus not truly ALIVE-

before the instant they take "their first breath" has several problems.

A) There is no verse that says this is the case.

B) John the Baptist, when in his 6th month as a fetus, was called-by God in the Bible

(for those who believe the Bible IS from God) a baby, and he responded to really esoteric

stimuli- he responded to joy at the approach of the coming Messiah, in a very indirect fashion.

It's a strange and unusual concept to approach, but-if GOD ALMIGHTY SAID IT- it behooves me

and all those who believe the Bible IS from God to accept that this is correct as stated.

That means that the concept that a person is not alive until one's first breath at the 9th month

has been successfully refuted in Luke, and that the LATEST one could be considered to be

alive and a person (albeit a baby, but babies ARE people) would be the 6th month-

3 months BEFORE vpw's doctrine.

When faced with this combination, it's rather sad that some, when asked specifically how they

reconcile their "first breath" doctrine, thus a "9th month" doctrine,

with the "6th month" verse,

would respond with repeated attempts to talk around it.

I'd have a LOT more respect for someone who said

"Being unable to refute the clear, overt meaning of the verses, I have changed my opinion

and claim that the New Testament says the LATEST point to consider a baby as being developed

into a living person, although I once held that it was in the 9th month at the "first breath."

So, it seems we are in 3 groups.

A) those indifferent to the Bible, since they hold it as not authoritative

B) those who can study the verses and come to new insights and conclusions

C) those who will maintain the twi/vpw doctrines and filter all insight through those doctrines

I was hoping all three would have insights to offer in this discussion at different points,

but it seems the third category has limited what they can bring to the table.

Um, thought I KINDA said that......?

Rick

We were typing at the same time. I took a few minutes to finish looking it up.