WordWolf

*checks* Dale Sides has LMCI. http://www.lmci.org/founder.cfm Michael Rood, http://www.michaelrood.com/

"I'm beginning to believe I can cure a rainy day."

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"

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." pond, this thread, Sept 8, 2006, 6:26pm Eastern. 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.

Is that "Dangerous Minds"?

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.

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 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.

[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.] [if that's the defining element WTH is determined to make of it, then my online relationships are MORE genuine than my offline ones!] [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.

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). 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....