Jump to content

Psalms18_28

Members
  • Posts

    2,698
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Psalms18_28

  1. First rule of thumb, never consider them handicapped. Make it possible for them to be independent. And always remember they are adults, so don't be making decisions for them as if they are a child. I work in a nursing home for quite some times, It wasn't just for elderlys either, there were all sort of people.

    Oh deaf people don't see themselves as disabled because they are not disable from each other. They are only disabled from the hearing people who don't know sign language and don't provide accomdation. You call them disabled, they will be offended.


  2. Indeed. And yet that's clearly not what 'I get' means. So when a person says 'can I get a coffee?', they are actually asking for permission to walk past the waiter into the staff kitchen and begin helping themselves. I once heard a comedian remark that, if he was a waiter being asked for service in this fashion, he would say, 'you can certainly have a coffee if you wish, sir, but I'll have to get it for you.'

    Yet this phrase seems to have become the standard way of asking for stuff in restaurants over the past 10 years!



    Some people I know would ask "Can you get me coffee" to a waiter. There are many self-serve coffee in resturants where I live , so people really do get their own coffee.

  3. What's this sentence really saying:

    'Waiter, can a get a coffee?'

    Another one that's wrong is the use of 'due to' instead of 'owing to'.

    Both Americanisms, I'm afraid. :wink



    I never heard of that. Are you sure that a is not "I" I know we have an accent. "Waiter, can I get a coffee"

  4. ok, i ain't got no prOBlem with that!

    What's this sentence really saying?
    "I haven't ever had no time to do my chores"?


    I have no prOBlems with that.

    I have never had any time to do my chores

    This seem more like this sentences like "I ever had no time to do my chores, HAVEN'T I?" I'm confused. :P
  5. I treat them the same. The damage have already been done, and we can only hope the couple will keep their current marriage strong. The couple already have consequences of divorce (custody battle, hurts, financial issues, etc.) and that's his/her cross to carry for the rest of their life. We do our best to give them biblical advices and counseling. I think the prOBlems would arise if it is a prideful thing.


  6. No matter who the RCC has done this to, its still sin. And its sinful for them to cover it up, which they seem to keep on doing.

    Plus all of those who have stood against them doing this to young boys who can hear, are standing just as strong against them for doing it to deft boys. No matter who the young boy is, no matter if they can or cannot hear, its a bad thing, and it hurts them dearly, and makes them feel low class.

    I agree wholeheartedly. I have wondered how many priest that been defrocked and jailed after being caught and why this one have not. That's all.


  7. Vatican Lashes out Against Sex Abuse Coverage



    Do they really think they can win a war against the press? They will just get more press coverage doing this.

    from the article
    Warsaw Archbishop Kazimierz Nycz said the church should take notice of individual tragedies and treat sex abuse cases very seriously, but at the same time he criticized the media for "targeting the whole church, targeting the pope, and to that we must say `no' in the name of truth and in the name of justice."
    Unfortunately, just about all churches go through this type of media attention when they use God to abuse. For me, What caught my attention is the deaf. The whole deaf culture are talking about it and they are extremely hurt by this and feel they have been neglected by the catholic church/gov't/etc. for not taking it seriously. They really need to think about how low class this make deaf people feel. The Catholic Church missing the point of what we are trying to tell them, it isn't attack at their religion (well, I am, but that's because I'm a born again believer), but attacking at their system on handling this.

  8. The man who pastored the church where my hubby and I met believed that, at conception, a child was a cancer - because cancer cells divide, and an embryo's cells divide. :smilie_loco:4

    yeah, I've heard of that too. I also heard how people say a baby is not a soul until he had his first breath. This is where many Christians figured "oh ok, then maybe it is ok to have an abortion"

  9. People knew for years before the SCOTUS erroneously passed Roe v. Wade that abortion is murder. Else, how could a man be tried for a double homicide when he kills a pregnant woman (it has been done more than once...) And abortion is legal because of the unconstitutional decision of the SCOTUS back in '73.

    #1 - there is no "right" to healthcare, so saying a babe in the womb would be entitle to it is ridiculous. Just because the fascist currently in the White House (& those in Congress) deem it so does not make healthcare an entitlement for anybody.

    #2 - there are MANY people who are US citizens who do not have SS numbers - and that doesn't make them non-living beings.

    #3 - a babe is dependent upon its mother while in utero, but that in no way makes it a non-living being...not even if the law says it's so.

    No, those conditions you've laid out don't define a living being, pt. They simply speak to the warped way in which many people view the baby growing in a mother's womb. Even Christians.

    Adultery is a crime in NY (misdemeanor), MI, Wisconsin, Mass., ND, OK, RI, SC, TN, AL, AR, FL, UT, In, and more (22 that I know of)...mayhap some of the states don't enforce it, but it's there on the books and is CRIMINAL, not civil.

    Again, a saved person can believe that abortion is okay - or they can think that it would be wrong if...There is no contingency other than repentance and full trust in Christ for salvation. It is after salvation that the Holy Spirit can reveal truth.


    a babe is dependent upon its mother while in utero, but that in no way makes it a non-living being...not even if the law says it's so >>>> and after he is born as well. A baby can not feed himself so he is still depended on his mother. If a baby is in her care, she'll go to prison if he died of neglects. Rather he have been documented or not (women have been put to jail for killing their babies soon as they were born)
  10. If a woman want to get right with Christ, she need someone to tell her. Too many pro-abortion counselors have came to clinics and impose their morality on Christians. They have a pro-choice religious counselor in those clinics in case they needed to talk to someone about religion and abortion. Even planned parenthood pulled my sister's resume' from a Christian college and asked her if she would work there as a counselor. She turned them down.


  11. I think almost anything is possible to think and "still be saved" depending on your upbringing or what you have/have not been taught.

    Anyone truly saved who reads in Psalms about God knowing us before we are born would surely hear the Spirit telling him the truth, though, and quickly change his mind.

    I'm sure there are cases where a doctor has been able to talk a young Christian into an abortion either by convincing the person that the baby is not "alive" or in severe cases of "mom vs. baby living"...but in general I think God gives us the Holy Spirit to teach us things like this.


    I agree with what Kitagrl wrote.

    Abortion can be a sensitive subject. Most women won't talk about it because they regret it. they get pressured to do it by different reasons. They don't know what else to do and they feel ashamed. I won't hold it against women who had it, Just wished they seek further to find a solution. any more than a person should hold against soldiers in a unjust war. There are women who are so torn up by it, that it is their greatest sin enough to turn to Christ.

    People often put stillborn or child who is dying (like no brain, only the mother's blood is keeping it alive) as the same class as abortion. and I feel those things don't count.
  12. When the Coopers were in our church they introduced this song as being written by Hank Williams Sr. and it was acknowledged that he was a very sinful man who died in his sins. It turned my stomach and made me sick when they started singing this song.
    oh I see now, which very understanding. it was how they introduced the song. The Coopers prOBably didn't know much about Hank Williams. Many people don't know much about other people's life.

  13. I do not believe a godly song can come from an ungodly man.




    While it is common many sinful men have sang Christian musics and hymns that have been written by other people (and possible they will lie and say they wrote the song), I do not understand this concept. You think this is godly song, but don't like it because an ungodly man wrote (and claim it couldn't couldn't be from a ungodly man)and an ungodly man sang it. I feel as long as the song line up with the bible, there is nothing ungodly about it and it doesn't matter who wrote it.

    I feel either the song is godly or ungodly, you make your pick.
  14. edited, sorry, it was the ex-wife who left the property....

    For some reason, I thought the current wife left and stayed with her mother... then I caught the "Ex-husband and his wife"

  15. hehe, I already knew guns to you was more of a hOBby than being used for the wrong reason. Other than defending yourself. Your avatar didn't scare me anymore than someone showing ninja weapons as their avatar (or one of those crazy violent games)

    I'm thinking of showing some knitting, but I'm afraid they may think the things we use for knitting is a weapon.

  • Member Statistics

    6,094
    Total Members
    2,124
    Most Online
    JennyTressler
    Newest Member
    JennyTressler
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...