ok, I read my post again and did mention sc. I believe my context was that you did have advantage to hit the link that was posted. I believe Lurker was pointing out that Jessica had given links to her write up in the USA Today.
It was kind of you to give Jim the benefit of the doubt, but he really left no doubt if you had read his two post both of which referenced problems due to sin and downplaying the sister's condition.
I guess all of us,especially me, would do well to think before we speak.
Thanks for your kind words Barry, and I also agree Mike from NY is awesome.
Companies have to respond to the consumer or risk losing their business. No buyers and the company goes out of business due to lack of capital. (unless of course your tax dollars bail them out) The government pretends no such restrictions exist (it will catch up with them eventually). So who is more responsive to the consumer, not the government but companies. Ask the lady who runs the florist if she appreciates government regulation on content.
Not too long ago the 800 pound gorilla on the internet was AOL. The number one browser was Netscape. Look where they are now. If you don't like your ISP, you fire them for the next guy. Why is Vonage so much cheaper than regular phone, they don't have to pay all the fees. One of the charges on your current phone bill is an excise tax that was put in place to fund the Spanish-American War(the war ended in 1898, the charge didn't). A charge that only hit the wealthy who could afford phones back then, so a soak the rich tactic, raise you hand if you feel rich now that you are also paying it, but I digress.
Now the internet is a utility managed by the same group that also runs the VA and the Post Office. How encouraging.
s c wrote: Thank you for your encouraging words,Jessica. ..pretty sure that he was not encouraging fast food. The Lord knows what he meant and,being impartial,that's how I understood it. ...hope that you two can come to an understanding. Unprofitable,perhaps you completely read through threads. I don't... mostly only parts... Hopefully,you're not accusing me of being cold. You will note that I was trying to encourage Jessica and give Jim the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps, you could do the same for me. You are being a bit presumptuous.
I don't think I mentioned you in my post, so no I was not saying you were being cold.
Barry from KY wrote: Actually Mike, it is the government that protects liberties, if not for our government, you or I would have no liberties. They have accomplished this by wielding the army, navy, air force and marines. It's not the NRA that gave you liberties! From what I've seen of the net neutrality thing, isn't it dealing with band width and has nothing to do with content, or am I reading it wrong???
Are they going to regulate content? Look at who made the ruling. The FCC. They currently regulate content over the airwaves.
Good analogy would be buying a house, if you come in with $300,000 you get a bigger and better house than if you come in with $75,000. Government trying to make it so both amounts buy same house. If you are the seller you then only sell the smaller houses instead of losing money on the bigger ones. The change will discourage investment, prices will rise, services will go down. It is inevitable.
Jim was saying exercise is helpful even if you are on fast food diet but what does that have to do with our dear sister. She even posted a link on her condition in another thread (see 2/21/15 9:38 PM Flower Shop Owner) which sc and Jim were was active in.
That article also has a link to the USA Today article Lurker posted again. So, it would not have taken much research to see what she is going through. Sigh, I just noticed he also made a rather cold hearted condemning comment over there (which hopefully they will remove)
actually shortly after the comment was posted I reported it for abuse and asked the moderators to remove it. Maybe now they will consider that.
Jessica you are such a blessing, and our heart breaks for your trials and afflictions, we can't imagine what it is like to be in your shoes. Many here, as stated, are praying for you and take great encouragement from your testimony and trust in God. God bless you sister.
dear sc I am sure you realize that Christian business people are not the moral police. EVERYBODY that walks into their store for business has issues with sin in their lives, no exceptions. Just because they serve those customers does not make them party to or condoning of their sinful behaviors. This is NOT the issue.
The florist would have turned down someone wanting flowers to celebrate their goal of having a thousand pornographic pictures on their computer. The florist would have turned down siblings wanting an arrangement to celebrate their incestuous relationship. The florist would have turned down the person celebrating rape and would not have given flowers for a 50 shades of grey party. The florist would not have given flowers to celebrate a cursing party. The florist would have turned down making arrangements for a Satanist get together.
The thing is she doesn't get those type of requests. (although I could see the Satanist one) The article specifically states that the "gay" person advised her the arrangement was to celebrate his "gay" marriage. She took a stand against it, we are thankful for her courage.
We don't know how many others she may have turned down for various reasons because they didn't bring a lawsuit or make it public.
Englightened wrote: ChristopherOOOOO and whoever is in agreement with Mr. OOO. You both should be ashamed. You would do well to fill in the OOOs lacking in your baseless comment. ..
Did you read the article???? I sincerely doubt it. If you had, you would know the reason Christopher put the start of his post in quotation marks is because it is a pull quote from the article. Brother Christopher said NOTHING about blacks in his comment.
While your upset at what is written in the pull quote is understandable, it is misdirected. Christopher did not write or research the article. You might want to consider asking the moderators to delete your comment or at the very least offer the good brother an apology.
sc, if one gives flowers for Valentine's Day it is because they are trying to honor the recipient. If I send flowers to someone's funeral, again the idea is to honor them. Flowers are a way to commemorate the occasion, to say this is a special day or you are a special person.
The article stated that the "gay" man specifically asked for floral arrangements for his "gay" wedding. She decided to take a stand regardless of the cost. I can imagine if someone walked into the florist and said, "I would like flowers to celebrate adultery with my adulterous partner", she would have also refused.
If your problem was indeed against the double standard, propaganda and spiritual grandstanding then the burden is with you to prove that this is true of this florist. The fact that she sold flowers to this customer for 9 years shows she is not promoting a double standard, she is simply refusing to honor "gay" marriage. I guarantee she wanted none of the publicity or problems she is now facing for taking a stand. She followed her convictions at a great cost to her.
The Corinthians dropped the ball in I Corinthians 5, please read II Corinthians 7:8-16.
Finally, if a person has anger issues does that mean they aren't in a position to reject malice or murder?
here is the issue with your rational sister s.c. (and you know I respect you)
The adulterous couple is not coming in and requesting a flower arrangement/cake to HONOR their adultery. The couple committing fornication is not asking for a flower arrangement/cake to HONOR their fornication (in fact if they are getting married they are resolving the issue).
The homosexual couple IS asking for an arrangement/cake to HONOR their homosexuality.
You are entitled to your opinion (and that is all that it is see Romans 14:14) but having a Steelers cake is not equal to idolatry.
Is ignorance bliss? (I Corinthians 10:25 Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake)
I Corinthians 5:9-11 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
You are requiring more than the apostle Paul wrote in Holy Scriptures.
Jim Lincoln wrote: make sure there's a level playing field.
level playing field = bring everyone down to the lowest level, it never means raise everyone to the higest level. Thus you will have slower speeds, less access and poorer service, but you can thank the Lord everyone else does too!!
Government run and regulated internet What could possibly go wrong
Sites like SA would more than likely be shutdown for their "hate" speech, cost of internet would go up (websites would have to get a license to operate) and speed would go down. (just ask the Europeans)
Scott McMahan, the world wide web is over 2 decades old, why would your scenario have not played out by now. If I want to go see my sister in St. Augustine I can take a 6 hour drive or a 2 hour flight. My budget says I drive. The fact that some can afford to fly doesn't make my option unavailable or less affordable. Ask the people who pay for cable if their bills went down when the government got involved, didn't happen. Ask the people whose healthcare is now higher with less choices if they think the government does a better job.
As Carl in Greensboro stated, pennnnned nailed it.
SteveR wrote: "Christian" is a big universe in the USA. In 2015 anybody can claim the religion with minimal lip service. Isnt that what Americans want? No thought police to tell them what a true Christian is? Half the people in the pews dont understand what their own Church teaches, let alone another Church Irony is, Obama wants people to believe he is Christian despite his actions. Yet, he can point his finger at ISIL memebers and say they arent Muslims
Thanks s.c. Please understand I am not asking you to accept anything less than God's standard on anything. I am glad you hold to the values you find in God's Word.
That being said, this story is not about you. It is not about me. It is not about a bunch of Christians taking a stand. It is about unsaved parents having issues with young children accessing porn. How you or I define porn is meaningless to this story. If the kid had come in with a video of a football player scoring a touchdown and you could see the cheerleaders jumping up and down in the background, there would be no California parents outraged. They don't and won't share your viewpoint. This article actually shows that people who more than likely would not have issues with sending their kids to school in shorts, or putting their girls on a cheerleading squad, or watching sports on television still draw a line. (Obviously one parent didn't) I am glad even secular society holds to some standards because I sure don't want the alternative. Indecency could be far worse than it is.
Pretty sure you don't have to spend time convincing the SA crowd of the importance of modesty and godly living.
You are right, maybe this will help to draw more to pulling their children out of state schools.
I would have to disagree with sister pennneed premise
1. Dispensationalist are not for war against anyone just to bring about Armageddon. You can't take one video of one Pastor and paint a wide brush across a group of Christians who basically don't share your eschatology. I have been in dispensational circles all my life and have NEVER heard calls for wars.
2. We were attacked by Islams/Muslims on 9/11, at foreign marine bases, on ships, etc. even the liberal 9/11 commission stated that they were at war with us when we were not at war with them.
3. God's Word tells us to pray for the peace of Jerusalem, do you think we should?
3. Paul pray was for the salvation of the nation of Israel not their destruction.
4. If the U.S. followed your recommendation and pulled all support of Israel out. The murders, rapes, and brutality of the Muslim forces would not change, you are in essence blaming Christians for the wickedness of the world. Look at all the atrocities committed against Christians by the Roman government and show me where the apostle Paul blamed their actions on the church.
5. The problem won't go away because the United States becomes an isolationist nation. They still are planning attacks here.
Hey Jessica thanks for your response. Although pennnnned will disagree, multiple studies has showed no significant benefit from organic foods. They are better just not much better. I am sure you and your husband are blessed with what you need. I admire your caring attitude and bold stand for those who suffer. God bless
Jessica Dawson wrote: ... Whatever you eat, give thanks!
Thanks sister Jessica for your kind and thoughtful words and gracious admonition.
Hope you are doing better, still praying for you. Thanks for taking time to post.
Don't worry about Jim, he gets mixed up sometimes, he means that the NYT, AARP, LA Times, PBS, Bill Moyer,MSNBC, etc. are unreliable sources, he can't even show you that what was reported by the JBS is not true and accurate.
John Yurich USA wrote: If false doctrines is supposed to make one susceptible to the false doctrine of Cayce then how come I was not susceptible to the false doctrine of Cayce? The answer is because it was ingrained in me to not have anything to do with the occult and the New Age philosophy. If I was able to resist not becoming involved in the occult and New Age philosophy then everybody should be able to resist becoming involved in the occult and New Age philosophy.
I guess our sweet sister from Canada didn't get the memo. Apparently it is all about John Yurich.