chocolatechip
-
Posts
1,263 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Classifieds
Store
Posts posted by chocolatechip
-
-
A man needed a new horse. He looked up an ad in the newspaper and went to see a man selling a young horse.
When he got there, he saw that the horse was in excellent health, and, in addition, the man was selling for a very reasonable price.
"I'll take him," the man said to the seller.
"Great! There's only one thing about my horse here: he used to be a preacher's horse. He doesn't answer to Giddup or Whoa, instead, you have to say, 'Praise the Lord' to get him to go, and 'Amen' to get him to stop. That ok with you?"
"Seems straightforward enough," the man concluded. "No problem."
After paying for his new horse, the man mounted and set off for home the long way, in order to better be able to test his new horse.
"Praise the Lord," he called. And the horse started.
He wanted to canter, so, "Praise the Lord!" he called a second time.
Deciding to put the horse through a gallop as well, he called "Praise the Lord!" a third time.
They were flying along, enjoying the marvelous day and the wind in their faces when the man saw a sign flash by. He barely had time to make out the words: BRIDGE OUT AHEAD.
In the near distance he could see the bridge. His heart flipped and he began to panic. "Whoa, horse!" he yelled. "Slow down!" But his words had no effect on the horse whatsoever.
"Cease! Desist! Stop! Quit! Slow! Halt! Easy! Steady! Quiet! Calm!" he shouted, but to no avail.
The bridge, or lack thereof, was very near now. In desperation, he lifted his eyes heavenward and prayed: "Dear God, I can't stop this horse, and I know I'm going to die. Please take care of me! Amen."
Dust flew, and the horse came to a screeching halt right at the edge of the precipice.
The man looked down into the canyon and wiped the sweat from his forehead. "Wow, that really was a close one. Praise the Lord!"
-
16
-
-
Most reasonable people consider birth control as a fairly basic part of women's health. It's only a right as much as women's health is a right. Personally, I believe that women do have a right to healthcare, and that a woman's right to health care trumps a corporation's right to deny it.
What I want to know is: When did it become corporations' responsibility to make sure employees get their "right" to birth control??? :001_huh: What about the rights of the people who run the corporations to religious freedom in their lives, including how they manage their businesses?
-
You are currently reading four books.
Is that all?!? :laugh:
-
I dont' think they come to another country to eat foods from back home! Make what YOU normally eat, and ask her if maybe she wants to show you a meal or two as part of the cultural exchange. Maybe take her grocery shopping one day.
I agree; I was just thinking about what I'd like if I were the one traveling to another country. I would love to experience the different foods. (Ok, maybe not anything too strange like steak tartare or escargot - :001_unsure: - :ack2: - , but you get the idea.) :)
-
Yummy! I think fresh fruit would be terrific. Can we all come to your house for the 4th? :drool5:
-
:svengo: Here we go again. . . :glare:
-
We have 38 coming to a party on Saturday and I need to start tonight prepping. Can I make chicken salad now and it keep till Saturday lunch? It will be in croissants. I've considered building or not and building tomorrow night. Either way I would love to boil, shred and do all chopling today
I'd cook and chop the chicken (and all other ingredients) anytime. I'd mix it together on Saturday morning.
FWIW, I would not assemble the sandwiches - I'd just let the guests build their own. They're more apt to get soggy if they're assembled, plus, what do you do if you have leftovers??? People around here DO NOT like leftover (or soggy, for that matter) sandwiches. :glare:
Some people might actually prefer the chicken salad alone anyway. It's more versatile non assembled, plus, it's less work for you! :hurray:
ETA: Just another thought: If you don't assemble, you could even have the bowl of chicken salad in another bowl of ice to help it stay cool during the party. . .
-
Please get your camera out of my house.
I have a big fat study bible that I tend to stick sermon notes, notes friends give me after church, and cash I plan to tithe later in. I've always kept things in books. I don't know why. I've always been slightly odd. Actually on my list you'll see "bookshelves" too. That's what that means.
Ahh, that makes sense.
Good for you for regularly cleaning them out, though! If it was me, I'd let it go until the cover was literally bulging and stuff was in risk of flying everywhere if I so much as cracked the cover open!
Yeah, neat freak doesn't apply to me. :leaving:
-
Can you provide links to support this? This is not something I have every encountered and I am interested in where this is happening.
This is kindly worded.
See, I provided links, because I like to back my claims with data.
This comes across like jabbing.
It's nicer if things can be discussed without becoming too heated or insulting. Please? With a cherry on top? ;)
Interjection over. Proceed with your regularly scheduled program. :)
-
Clean Out Bible
:huh: What does this mean? Do you make notes as you do devotions, or ??
-
Hippy, hoppy, happy birthday!
-
:smilielol5:Ahh, this should solve the debate neatly! Who needs to debate pie/cake when you can have pake? :D
-
WHERE IS THE OBLIGATORY "OTHER"???
I don't "hate" both pie and cake, but I really don't like them.
Brownies, please. :drool:
What, "Bacon" wasn't a good enough "other"???? I'm shocked!! :lol:
But I'll oblige you. One obligatory other: done. :D
-
I'm sure this has been posted before. But who doesn't love a good poll?
So what's it going to be?
If you're so inclined, reply and share your favorite variety of said choice. :drool5:
-
I consider going to any restaurant "going out to eat." This includes fast food.
I'm in a toss-up on things like delis inside grocery stores. I lean towards not considering that "eating out."
-
We had an accident (small) in our 1996 Toyota Corolla (read: not very valuable car). The front hood of the car went partly under the back of a big SUV.
The insurance company's estimate said that the repairs would be more than the value of the car.
We sent the car to our own mechanic for an estimate. He quoted less than the value of the car. So we chose to fix the car anyway, however, it does now carry that branded title. It was worth it to us to fix the car, because even though it wasn't "worth" much, it is worth a lot to us: we aren't having to buy a new car because we have it. So if you're not scared of salvaged titles. . .
It's frustrating that our title is salvaged, though, when a title on a brand new Corolla in the same accident would have been clean. :glare:
-
:grouphug:
-
I believe you. I absolutely believe you. And I believe you have given this much thought, prayed or meditated on it, and approach it with an open and loving heart. I don't question that at all. I will defend your right to those beliefs. I would never think you came to any decision of such magnitude callously or without empathy and compassion.
Do you not think others people can go through the same process and come to a different conclusion? Are their thoughts and prayers and open and loving hearts insufficient just because they do not come to the same conclusion as you? Do you have the only correct answer for everyone?
What gives your deeply held beliefs precedence over another persons? On matters that require such careful thought and are painful and require careful consideration, why not give each person in a democracy the power make those decisions for themselves?
I agree, I don't have the right to impose my wishes on others. If I want to have the courtesy of being able to live the way I'd like to, I absolutely need to extend the same to others.
In the end, it is, obviously, a very personal decision. If a friend of mine was raped and chose to have an abortion, I would absolutely hurt for her. And I would be sad that she'd chosen an abortion. I can't understand all of her motives unless I'd walked a mile or two in her shoes: my job is to love her, not judge her. But loving her doesn't mean I have to support all her actions.
On the last point: I address this in the next section; they kind of overlapped.
I posted what I did because I felt that people were accusing those who oppose abortion even in cases of rape of being completely devoid of feeling towards others, and I wanted to offer another view. Whether that was truly the case, I know not.
Also, thank you for being genuinely kind and not snarky. I appreciate the opportunity to think these things through and to see what others see in my opinion.
I agree that life can be hard and that sometimes very difficult decisions have to be made. That can be bearable though, if those difficult decisions are my own and are not enforced on me by family, society, government, corporations or outside entities.
What I find despicable, and what any person living in the free world who values freedom should find abhorrent is if the autonomy to make tough personal decisions is taken away from a person through government mandates.
On government mandates: I believe that every individual should have the right to make their own decisions when those decisions are not going to harm others. So, I think things like seatbelt laws, ect., even the healthcare mandate (!) usually overstep the bounds of government. If I choose not to wear my seatbelt, and I crash and am killed, then that was my own fault. Things like laws against drinking and driving, however, protect me from injuring others by my decisions.
I believe that abortion falls in this latter category simply because I believe life begins at conception and that the taking of that life is wrong.
In today's world, though, abortion is legal. Thus, I don't have any right to enforce my beliefs on other women who don't agree. That is why I said that I don't expect everyone to agree, because I know that they never will, simply because they don't share my belief that life begins at conception. I may (and do) wish that they did agree with me, but that doesn't give me any sort of right to impose my opinion on them.
However: I do consider it my responsibility to vote against enabling abortion, except for cases where the life of the mother is in danger. Those are even more painful and difficult, and I really feel for women who have to make that choice.
Not if the male won't agree.
Frankly, I think this *should* be a moot point, because in my opinion there is no effing way a rapist should have access to the child even if he is a sperm donor.
Bills have been put forward to block their efforts to achieve visitation or custody but as far as I know none have yet become federal law. The last news article I found said that in 31 states he could still legally sue for custody.
If I were (hypothetically) to become pregnant by rape, I would be a lot more likely to *not* have an abortion if I knew that the rapist was permanently out of my life and couldn't come back in trying to get custody or visitation.
I agree with you completely that rapists shouldn't be able to access the children. Absolutely. It's very sad that women have to endure this. If asked to vote on the issue, I would definitely support keeping rapists away from the women they injured and the children they fathered (unless the woman wished contact at a later point, though I can't imagine why.)
Chocolatechip, I see everyone is quoting your post, but I realize it is entirely possible that you are perfectly fine with people making such decision for themselves. You might just be explaining your own personal beliefs.
I say this because I have noticed in several of your posts you end by saying "I don't expect everyone to agree with me." That is a statement that supports people making their own choices on this matter.
Unless of course you don't support individual women being able to make their own decisions on this matter, in which case you do expect everyone to agree with you.
I touched on this above: I wish they agreed; I know they won't. In the end, we all are responsible for making our own decisions.
Sorry for the giant post; I do want to say though, that I have really appreciated this discussion. It's given me a lot of insight into others' points of view, and I can honestly say that where I before was simply baffled at a positions, now I can begin to understand where people are coming from. I have seen so much genuine though going into everyone's positions. Even though we don't agree, at least we can respect each other. Thank you all. :)
-
Did you know in more than half of the states a rapist can seek (and get!) visitation or custody? So no only did he violate this woman in the worst possibly way, if she reports the rape then he would be DNA tested, if he was the father he would have a say in adoption. If he got custody or partial visitation she would have to see him regularly for the next 18 years. So we effectively be forcing a woman to carry a child born of a violent, horrible interaction and then subjecting her to him for 18 years all for what? How is that ok? How is that not punishing the woman?
Earlier in the thread, someone said, "Life is hard." It IS hard. SO hard sometimes.
I know you all probably won't believe me, but it is possible to really hurt for the woman who was terribly violated but still not support her having an abortion. Adoption (perhaps closed?) would be one of her options.
Again, these things are hard. Difficult decisions are involved. Pain is involved.
But I still can't support the taking of a life even in cases of rape.
I realize this is not everyone's position.
-
The Bible doesn't say anything about this. Every bit of the debate is extra-Biblical.
Many churches have tradition that does say something about the issue. This Tradition is every bit as important as the Bible to those churches.
-
Science changes its mind? More like people learn more about science.
Same end effect: unreliability at any given moment. :leaving:
-
Uhhh...scientists say that a woman is pregnant when the egg implants in the uterus. That is how ACOG defines the beginning of pregnancy (not life, I didn't say anything about life). You are not aware of this?
Many people don't consider science to be the final authority. . .I'm more worried about what God says. (I know this isn't the case for everyone.)
(Unrelated to above statement) - Science changes its mind SO OFTEN. It's crazy. First blah blah blah is SO good for you. Ten years later: now it's a carcinogen.
-
And if left without a healthy uterus to implant in, the fertilized egg will die. So how is it murder to prevent a fertilized egg from having the chance to implant into a uterus, but it's not murder to prevent a sperm from having the chance to reach an egg? Either way it's a cell that could potentially develop into a human being.
Obviously, I don't consider either scenario to be murder. I just find it baffling that so many people can't see how arbitrary these political distinctions are.
Yes, the fertilized egg will die on its own. It wasn't a willful prevention of the life that was already created.
It isn't a "political distinction" for many of us. It's religious. And we find it baffling that so many people think it's arbitrary. I suppose it's one of those things that we just won't be able to see eye to eye on.
-
Abortion destroys what has the potential to be a living baby. Technically so does male masturbation, but oh-so-conveniently the men in charge of deciding these things placed the magical "this is a human life" marker after conception so they would remain free to wank it to their heart's content.
If left alone, though, the sperm will die. No two ways about it.
Once the sperm and the egg meet, however, a baby will form. Sometimes the woman miscarries, yes, but in the majority of cases a baby will result.
Sperm have the potential if and ONLY if something else happens. Under normal circumstances, the egg and sperm together have the potential already.
Court cases already being impacted by Hobby Lobby ruling
in The Chat Board
Posted
But the point is, individuals and their businesses should have the right to refuse service. It's just plain ridiculous to think that the government thinks it can force them to provide a service for any person or persons (unless they have signed a contract with said person(s). That's a different situation.)
Forcing them to provide service because of "public accommodation laws" is just another way of taking away their right to refuse service. :glare:
I don't care if the couple is gay or straight. If the bakery doesn't want to make the cake, they shouldn't have to make the cake!