Jegsy Scarr

Administrators
  • Content count

    1,623
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jegsy Scarr

  1. Going to Rome...

    Hey, guys! I'll be on holiday in Rome for a week, so I won't be on the site till I get back. Just letting you know so you don't freak out that I'm gone, or something. See you then! xxx
  2. Religious Freedom Restoration Act

    What if you're a baker who often makes that kind of cake, and a guy from the Westboro Baptists comes in and asks for one to use as a prop in one of their gay marriage protests (e.g. to destroy it in front of a crowd to make a statement)? If you refuse to make the cake for him, then you're refusing him a product you'd make for a different person, because you don't want to participate in that event. You're not discriminating against the customer himself, but you don't want to take part in an event you find morally objectionable. What if a straight person orders a cake for a same-sex wedding, and they refuse to make that? There it's obvious that they're not refusing service based on the customer's sexual orientation. The same goes for the opposite, a gay person ordering a cake for an opposite-sex wedding. If they make the product for them, then again, it proves they're not discriminating based on the customer's sexual orientation. You can't even argue, "Well, you might not be refusing service based on the sexual orientation of the customer, but you're refusing to participate in the wedding of someone based on their sexual orientation." That's not true. It doesn't matter whether the marriage is between two gay men or two straight men. You're objecting to the idea of a marriage between two men, and their sexual orientation isn't relevant to you. Actually, imagine if you were a baker who was fine with same-sex marriage, but when two men come to you for a wedding cake, they let slip that they're just doing it for the tax benefits they'll get, and they're actually both straight. If you refuse to make them the cake, are you discriminating against them because they're straight? No - you object to the idea that someone is using marriage in such a way when you believe it should be about love. This blog-post is really good (not sure if I've posted it before): http://www.catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/conscience-and-the-right-to-refuse-service xxx
  3. Church and state

    Two things spring to mind here. Firstly, that line, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Too many people today think that the "free exercise" of religion means freedom to worship. It doesn't. I've heard UK politicians talk about how we live in a Britain that has freedom of worship. Freedom of worship is NOT freedom of religious expression, but only part of it. To have free exercise of religion doesn't just mean you're free to go into a church or a synagogue or a mosque and worship and they won't stop you. It means you're allowed to talk about your faith, both in private and in public. It means you're allowed to teach others about your faith. It means you're free to practice your faith, every day of the week, whether you're inside a religious building or not - in other words, you don't have to check your faith at the door whenever you leave your home. Secondly, when people say that religion shouldn't have to do with politics, it's important that they don't confuse the two. For example, sometimes people will argue that being pro-life has to do with religion, and therefore if someone tries to pass a law restricting abortion, they will be accused of forcing their religious beliefs on someone else. But this is a misunderstanding of the argument - just because someone who is pro-life happens to be religious (most tend to be), it doesn't follow that therefore they're making a religious argument. Martin Luther King Jr was religious, but it didn't therefore follow that the arguments he made against segregation were just religious arguments. Saying that, I always find it unhelpful when I see Christians mentioning religious arguments when it's irrelevant to the situation. When you get a politician saying, "As a Christian, I believe that we need to protect the right to life of the unborn"...yeah, that's not a Christian argument. Lots of atheists and non-Christians also believe that the unborn have rights. Mentioning religion just confuses people into thinking that the pro-life position is based only on religion, and therefore that any pro-life law would be just a case of bringing religion into politics. The same thing just happened with same-sex marriage - everyone started quoting the Bible and saying that heterosexual marriage was designed from God, instead of using secular arguments that everyone, whether religious or not, was going to find relevant. Again, too many people therefore would say, "Only religious people are against same-sex marriage," when that's just not the case. By all means, don't hide your faith, but don't start quoting the Bible to argue a political position, because that helps no one and only serves to confuse the issue. xxx
  4. When marriage begins

    From a Catholic perspective, you're married at the moment you exchange the vows. For Christians in particular, marriage is a sacrament, and since it's the vows that make you married, it's true to say the the ministers of the sacrament are the man and woman themselves, conferring the sacrament on each other. The priest or deacon is just there to witness on behalf of the Church. It's a valid marriage from the moment you make the vows, but it's not consummated till...well, till it's consummated. In a sacramental marriage between two baptised Christians, once the husband and wife have had sex it's absolutely binding, and the marriage can't be dissolved for any reason. xxx
  5. How can racist people be Christian?

    Well, Jesus clearly forbids divorce in all four gospel accounts, yet most Protestants (at least those in the largest denominations) allow for divorce at least in the case of adultery. Now, as I've pointed out in another thread, whether or not there's an exception for adultery all comes down to how you translate one Greek word in Matthew's gospel. Translate it to mean "adultery", and divorce is acceptable in cases of adultery. Translate it as "unchastity", specifically unnatural relationships (e.g. a brother and a sister), and it's about a civil divorce where you have an invalid marriage. Now, I think there's a stronger case for the latter translation, but it's not that clear. And if all you're relying on is that Bible verse alone, there's not really a way to prove which translation is right. You'd need something else. The Catholic Church would argue that we know Jesus didn't make any exceptions for divorce because that's what we have in Sacred Tradition. In other words, Jesus's apostles, who heard Him teach a lot more about marriage and divorce than what we have written down, taught the first Christians, and would be able to clarify any ambiguities in the gospel texts. Those same teachings have been passed down from generation to generation of Christians. When someone first asked, "Is there an exception to divorce in cases of adultery? The Greek isn't clear to me," it was very easy for the Church to say, "There's no exception, and we know this because in all the centuries of the Church, we've always understood there to be no exceptions and taught accordingly." Also, sometimes Jesus's words seem pretty clear indeed, but people will still argue about them. "This is My Body" is about as clear as it could be, but we have people argue about whether on not it's symbolic. That's not a small doctrinal disagreement, either - if Jesus means what He says literally, then that's one of the most important things in Christianity. You can't just shrug and say, "Hey, I guess that piece of bread really is Jesus. I'll just carry on with my life as it was before." When people first started arguing, "You know, this whole thing about the bread and wine being Jesus's body and blood, that could be read as a symbol," the Catholic Church was quick to say, "Guys, this has been a constant teaching of the Church right from the beginning, and dates back to Jesus's apostles." Okay, I'm rambling again Basically, if Jesus's teachings were so clear from the Bible alone, then there'd be no disagreement in Christianity based on different interpretations of the Bible. xxx
  6. How can racist people be Christian?

    But none of those passages are condoning slavery. The Mosaic law was never supposed to be, "Here's what God wants you to do." The laws aren't meant to be perfect - a lot of them are just damage-control, like the laws concerning slavery and divorce. Remember that you're starting out with a society in which slaves had absolutely no rights whatsoever. While it's true that eventually there are to be no slaves or masters with everyone a free citizen, it can't go there overnight, just as going from "Have sex with as many woman as you like and dump them when you get bored with them" to "You get one wife, for life, and you're never allowed to have another as long as she lives, nor can you have sex with anyone else" isn't going to work. These kinds of societal attitudes take generations to change, just as it took many generations for our society to see women or anyone who wasn't white as being equal (in fact, most will argue we're still not there). Even St Paul isn't saying that slavery is a good thing. He's saying, "This is a non-Christian society in which slavery exists, so if you are a Christian who happens to be a slave, here's how to live." He himself is very clear about the fact that these are just societal constructs, and that for Christians, everyone is equal whether the civil law recognises them as citizens or not. You gave two options - "either some of the most devoutly Christian societies of all time were not really Christian, or that those people did consider themselves to be deep followers of their faith and focused on different parts of the Bible when deciding how to practice their faith." But it seems obvious to me that it's not an either-or. There were people who read the Bible, interpreted to mean that Christians could support slavery, and therefore considered themselves to be good Christians. But no matter how sincere they were in their beliefs, they were wrong. Christianity doesn't support slavery. They were not, therefore, fully following Christianity - they may have been right about everything else, but in being wrong on this one issue, there is a real sense in which they were not "fully" Christians. Christianity is not some abstract belief system. If it was, then you could have Christians on both sides of the slavery debate, and as long as they were backing up their beliefs from the Bible, then they could all equally be said to be following Christianity. But that's not what Christianity is. The teachings of Christianity come from Jesus Christ Himself. That's why there's no room for disagreement on something like slavery. The question is, does Jesus support slavery? If He's against it, then no amount of "But I interpret the Bible to support slavery" is going to cut it. That's not what Jesus taught, and therefore slavery is not okay. Now, how do you work out what Jesus taught? Simply put, not from the Bible alone. As has been pointed out, you can read the Bible and interpret it to mean pretty much anything you like. And as we've seen from history, when Christians are left to read the Bible and interpret Jesus's teachings from it - instead of the other way round, using what Jesus taught to read the Bible correctly - you end up with a hundred different beliefs about Christianity, which can't all be true since Jesus is a real person who taught real things. Jesus knew a Bible wasn't going to be enough, and He left a Church which would have the authority to carry on His teachings and make sure no one came up with weird new beliefs. Right, I'm going to leave before I annoy the Protestants any more (love you, Vincey!) xxx
  7. The Unheard Story of David and Goliath

    Aww, I saw this ages ago and forgot to post it! Oh, well, you beat me to it, I guess... xxx
  8. Yeah, Mirage has summed it up pretty well. Obviously, the easiest way to get yourself removed from the site is by posting spam messages and advertisements. We ban a lot of members (many who are presumably just bots) like that on a regular basis, and that's done by individual admins when they notice spam (there's no consulting with the other admins over whether Mr Viagra Seller gets to stay on the site). But yeah, we've had some very odd members who have been banned over the years. We had one guy who posted a hardcore pornographic picture in the forums repeatedly until he was banned about five minutes later when the admins noticed (not, unfortunately, before I'd seen the image in question *shudder*). We had one guy in his late forties who posted in the introduction thread a link to his website, in which he was looking for teenage virgin girls to be his brides. Not to have sex with them, just to be virgin brides on a permanent basis. Needless to say, he was gone immediately. So...Yeah, don't do those things, and you should be fine. xxx
  9. Skin hunger

    Yeah, I hug people all the time. Plus, I live with my parents, so I just have to say, "Mum! Hug!" and I can get one any time (Usually, my dad gets annoyed unless he gets a hug from me, too, and then my mum will probably give him a hug, so it all works out well for everyone with two hugs each). Also, it reminds me of this: xxx
  10. ??? No. Lots of people don't have sex till they're older, and many many people don't have sex at all in their lives. Think of those in the priesthood and religious life. Pope Francis has already gone 78 years without sex, and seems to be doing fine. Pope John Paul II went 84 years. Nothing to worry about. Perhaps in The Onion? xxx
  11. Date

    Probably a movie, dinner at a restaurant (not too fancy, e.g. TGI Friday diner etc), a dance (again, not formal, e.g. a ceilidh), an art gallery or museum, a trip to a theme park, and so on. They'd be fun, and not too expensive and whatnot. Once we'd been dating for a while, we could perhaps go somewhere more expensive and less casual. xxx
  12. Exactly like me? No, probably not. Certainly, as far as things like beliefs, values, etc, I'd like him to be the same as me, because that just makes sense. Plus, things like how many kids we want, when to start having kids, etc. But I'd like him to be different to me with some things, too. I think I need someone who's more assertive, confident, and so on, because I'm not particularly. Perhaps someone who's good with finances, although I could learn to do all that. Maybe someone who can cook. Probably someone who's more patient than me, too. Someone who's good with getting rid of spiders, lifting stuff and opening bottles would be good, too... xxx
  13. How can racist people be Christian?

    It all depends how you define "Christian". If you mean it in the widest possible sense - someone who's been baptised a Christian and/or believes (at least intellectually) that Jesus is the Son of God and died for our sins - then it's very possible for them to be racists, too. Simply being baptised and holding an intellectual belief doesn't in and of itself make you a good person. Lots of people say, "Oh, yes, I believe in Jesus," but they don't make any attempt to follow the teachings of Christianity. If you mean "Christian" in a wider sense - someone who's not just been baptised Christian and believes in Jesus, but is also trying seriously to live their life according to Jesus's teachings - then you're right: it's not possible to be a Christian and a racist. Christianity is very clear that we are all of equal value, regardless of race, sex, or societal status (Galatians 3:28). I'd say that it's always important to judge a belief system by those who are living up to the teachings of that belief system, not by those who disobey it. Every religion has good and bad people following it, and simply being "religious" won't make you a good person. xxx
  14. How many weddings have you been to?

    I don't think I've been to all that many. I can remember (I think) two from when I was a kid. In the past few years, I've been to three (I think), but all three of them were as part of my choir (we also sang at the reception of a fourth). I literally can't think of any family weddings. My second-cousin got married a little while ago, but it happened abroad so I wasn't there. There are only a few people in my family who are at or approaching the "typical" marrying age, so I'd expect to see several coming up in the next few years. xxx
  15. Random Thoughts

    Yeah, the settings for the Introductions sub-forum are that new thread authors are automatically listed as the "Newest Member" at the top of the page. Which is fine, until you want to post a thread in there that's not to do with being a new member... Hmm, maybe we need a section for people to announce they're going on holiday, or whatnot... xxx
  16. Going to Rome...

    Well, I'm back! Now I just need to gradually sift through all the new forum posts to catch up... Thanks for all your nice comments and whatnot. I had fun, and I saw a lot! I did get to see the Pope pretty close up at his Papal Audience on Wednesday, but no chance for a high-five, unfortunately (I saw someone else give him a hug). Ah, well, maybe next time. Food was awesome! My parents and I just stuck to the same basic schedule every day, really: breakfast in the morning, have a lunch of pizza or pasta, and then just go out for ice cream in the evening. It seemed to work really well, and I didn't really get hungry, or anything, so maybe I should stick with the ice cream every night. (Vince, you'll be pleased to know that we found this great ice cream place that had a selection of vegan flavours) The churches there are so beautiful, too! Every one of them is all pretty and whatnot with paintings and candles and stuff. I got to visit the church where St Catherine of Siena (my confirmation saint) is buried (well, her body is there, but her head is in Siena). Sistine Chapel was pretty, but you did hurt your neck trying to look at everything, and there were all these darn tourists in the way... It was so hot, though. But the apartment we were staying in had really good air conditioning, so that was good. And inside the churches was cool, because of the marble, maybe. I went to an English-speaking Mass on Sunday (but I did go to one in Italian the day before, too), and that was the only time I think it was really too hot inside a church, mostly because of how crowded it was, I think. But it was the just after Corpus Christi, and the priest gave a really great homily. Oh, and right around the corner from our apartment was a pet shop, selling the two cutest little kittens ever. Plus, they had a really cool parrot (blue and gold macaw), but I don't think it was for sale. And for some reason, sausage dogs are really popular pets over there, because everyone seemed to be walking them. Oh, and I saw the Swiss Guards at the Vatican! I was a little worried that they'd be like those guards at Buckingham Palace who aren't allowed to smile and whatnot, but these ones did smile. Did you know that they all have to be single, Catholic men between the ages of 18-30? I saw one with glasses who was really really cute *sigh*... There were so many people on the street corners trying to sell stuff. You know, the one-euro souvenir bottle openers, the genuine-designer-not-at-all-fake handbags, and whatnot. And for whatever reason, there were people everywhere selling selfie-sticks. Also, they have a lot of souvenir shops that sell the exact same things. For some reason, every shop seemed to be selling nodding Pope Francises, glow-in-the-dark rosary beads, and calenders of nothing but (I kid you not) pictures of the penises on ancient marble statues, including Michaelangelo's David. Okay, I'm just rambling now about weird stuff. I'll stop. TL;DR: I'm back from Rome. xxx
  17. Oh, gosh, he's got an article on why he doesn't think a man can rape his wife... https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2014/06/04/is-there-marital-rape-or-not/ (Bolded emphasis is mine) So basically, the best he can say is, "Well, forcing your wife to have sex isn't bad. It's just not good." It's especially troubling considering that his "ideal" scenario of how a husband should act if his wife refuses sex is still that if all else fails, "potentially meting out consequences as necessary." This is considered by the author to be "responding out of love" in a Jesus-like way. I have no idea how he envisions a husband "meting out consequences." Also, the fact that there's absolutely no indication given that a wife might have perfectly good reasons to refuse sex that's aren't sinful. He just says Refusing sex = a sin, and leaves it at that. So if we take this article to its logical conclusion, if a wife refuses to have sex with her husband because her doctor told her not to have sex for a while (e.g. after she gave birth), that's a sin, and her husband can force her to have sex against her will, and certainly if he's tried to reason with her about it and she's still refusing. Presumably, he can have sex with her even if she's kicking and screaming that she doesn't want to, and it's still the wife who's sinning, regardless of reasons for refusing sex. I...I can't even... xxx
  18. Eurovision

    Oh, gosh, I was watching Eurovision with my mum, and she just frantically pointed to the TV and was like, "Look, Julie!!! Phantom!!!" I was like, "You know, just having masks doesn't make something automatically Phantom..." Especially with the weird dancing (is that guy crawling on the floor at the end?) The name "Beauty Never Lies" was what reminded me of it most, I guess, what with that awful similarly-named musical sequel... xxx
  19. lol! I know, I think I started off seriously, then just had fun with it... xxx
  20. Uh...Yeah, a lot of this article just seems kind of weird... To the women. What men are attracted to: physical beauty. All things being equal (spiritual characteristics, femininity, etc.) a man will pick the most attractive female. The good thing, however, is that all men have different tastes for what they find attractive. Some like black hair, some like brown, some like blonds, some like redheads. Some like different color eyes, some like different types of body shapes. Okay, let me try to sum up what I've learned so far: Men like attractive women, but men find different things attractive. So in other words, this advice boils down to: "You have blonde hair and blue eyes? Very good - some men will find that attractive." That's not really advice, then, if what it means by attractive is "having a hair and eye colour that some men like." Okay, I have light brown hair and hazel eyes, which some men like, so that means I'm attractive. However, one of the things that turns most men off (note: most not all) is being overweight or obese. If you are overweight or obese and you want to have men ask you out I would suggest losing weight through good nutrition and exercise. The same would be true for men. Women don’t want a man who is overweight or obese. Again, all things being equal all men and all women would prefer to have their spouse be physically active and healthy. This seems pretty common-sense, doesn't it? But then, they're saying that all men and women prefer healthy spouses. They're thinking in terms of being obese, but if you're otherwise unhealthy through no fault of your own (e.g. medical condition), I'm not sure what good this advice would be for you. This is not to say personality does not matter. It does. If there is a attractive woman that nags, is entitled, and otherwise makes a man’s life a pain in the butt then these are qualities in her personality that will make him drop her as a potential mate. I'm still not getting how this "advice" is anything other than common sense. Men don't want horrible women as wives even if they're beautiful...well, duh. Being spiritual is not an excuse to ignore the physical, and neither is being physical fit an excuse to ignore the spiritual. You want both. Be as physically attractive as you can, and seek after God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. "Be as physically attractive as you can" - okay, you've still not made it clear what "physically attractive" means, other than "don't be fat, and continue to have whatever colour of hair and eyes you have." Note: All of the tenets that feminism pushes onto women such as confidence, independence, strong attitude, etc in women is a turnoff for most men. We are looking for a spouse, not a business partner. "Confidence" is a turnoff? Over-confidence, sure, but just saying "confidence" is pretty vague. I mean, I can get up in front of a group of people and sing a song, which I guess means I have confidence, but I doubt that's what it means. Ditto with "independence" and "strong attitude" - just too darn vague. Conclusion: Women your physical beauty will get you in the door, and your personality and spirituality will make him want to keep you. While the latter is the most important, you cannot neglect the former if you want to get married. If you're not "physically beautiful" (but I still don't know what that means), then I guess you're never going to get married. To the men. What women are attracted to: lots of different things including looks, athleticism, talent (musical and otherwise), high status, masculine personality, money, etc. Proportions of these depend on the woman and you have no way to telling. However, the most important one to develop is a confident masculine personality, although the others are nice to have and can/should be worked on. The easiest way to improve your confidence is your posture, working out, etc. Again, is this not just common sense? And I love how vague it all is: women are attracted to "lots of different things including..." but this depends on the woman and "you have no way to telling". Remember this men: your confidence is displayed in your posture, your walk, and your tone of voice. Studies show that non-verbals are 50-90% of the conversation. You can have all of the confidence in the world, but if it is not reflected in your body language you will fail. If a Christian man goes up to a Christian woman with slumped shoulders, a downcast look in his eyes, is fidgting, and speaks quickly with a high tone of voice “let’s go out on a date” is he going to be successful? Absolutely not. On the other hand, if a Christian man goes up to a Christian woman with his shoulders back, a smile on his face, makes direct eye contact with her, and says in a low tone masculine voice” “let’s go out on a date” is he going to be successful? A much higher percentage that the woman will say yes. ??? A "low tone masculine voice" telling me "Let's go out on a date" rather than asking me if I want to go on a date? That sounds kind of creepy. Easy ways you can work on your non-verbals and confidence from another commenter: 1. Start working out. Heavy weights to build muscle But...I don't like really muscle-y men. I like guys who look like librarians, or violinists, or opera ghosts. 2. Fix your nutrition if you’re overweight/obese. Add in more protein to help gain muscle But...I don't like really...oh, forget it. Plus, isn't "Lose weight if you're overweight" common sense? 3. Work on your posture. Don’t slouch. Ever. Wow, that sounds like a threat. 4. Work on your walking. Long strides, confidently. When you’re making any actions, slow and deliberate. If you have any nervous movement such as scratching, wiggling, RLS, etc eliminate it completely. Doesn't the long strides thing make it sound like a gorilla? Like a chimpanzee at a tea-party, getting slapped on the back of the head repeatedly by its trainer: "Stop scratching your fur for bugs, and pour the tea like a good chimp." 5. Become comfortable with space. When you’re sitting down instead of crossing legs or arms over yourself spread legs out and put your arm up on the chair. Get comfortable and relaxed in these power poses. Whoa, whoa, whoa...This writer is telling guys to sit in chairs with their legs wide open? That's one of the most off-putting things I see guys doing, sitting there across from me like he's trying to show off his thingy, or just say, "Look at me, I'm a man, I want to fertilise all your eggs." Please don't do this. 6. Make eye contact with everyone. Hold it and don’t look away first. Smile if you lock on for a few seconds and it continues. Never look down when talking to a woman as this indicates to her that [you are submissive to her]. I bet in practice, this is really creepy. 7. Speak more slowly and deliberately so that your voice is lower in tone. Or, make her think that you think she's stupid. Obviously, these things are important, but more important is your spiritual walk. As is stated in Scripture about Jesus: “They were amazed at his teaching, because his words had authority.” As a masculine, CHRISTIAN man you should be studying the Word, praying, meditating, fasting, etc so as to become more like Jesus. You should know the Scriptures well enough to speak with authority on your faith. If you don’t know the Scriptures or the power of God then how are you to be a responsible leader in your marriage? Conclusion: Men your masculine personality and confidence will get you in the door, and your ability to lead her spiritually will make her want to keep you. While the latter is the most important, you cannot neglect the former if you want to get married. Again, this must be awful for all the guys who struggle with insecurity who think this means they're not going to find a woman who'll want to marry them. Final conclusion: Both sexes should work on being more physically attractive and spiritually attractive. However, men and women are different in what they look for in attractiveness. You need to know the population you are trying to sell yourself to if you wanted to get married. Seriously, this is just common sense. I have learned nothing from this article, except how to walk like a gorilla. xxx
  21. Take Charge?

    Just found this, and thought I'd share it: http://chastityproject.com/2015/05/im-afraid-awkward-wedding-night/ I like this part: Anyway, I've never worried about my husband being "inexperienced". As I've said before, I'd much prefer him to be inexperienced. Frankly, I think it takes the pressure off of me if I know we're both beginners. We won't be expecting anything beyond making love and falling asleep in each other's arms. Plus, a lot of honeymoon practice, so I'd say it's a win-win. xxx EDIT: I just had a look at the comments for the author's blog, and found this great one, which I'll add: http://arleenspenceley.com/wedding-night/#comment-1985216641
  22. Why do we need to call her anything? Why not just "a woman who's having pre-marital sex"? What does a label like "slut" or "whore" achieve? I mean, say that this woman, or a woman in a similar situation, reads this thread. Is seeing people calling her a slut going to help her in any way to turn her life around, or is it just going to make her think we all hate her? xxx
  23. Really? Seriously, what's with this thread? It's literally devolved into an argument about whether it's acceptable to call someone a slut or not. Look, I get that people are upset with this girl for what she's doing. I think it's awful, too. By all means, tell us how you think it's wrong. But I'm reading this thread, and it's as if people are actually taking pleasure in calling this woman a whore and a slut. And it's especially bothering me seeing Christians doing it. It's a real cliché, I'll admit, but what would Jesus do? More to the point, what did He do? When he met the woman caught in adultery, He didn't pretend she'd done nothing wrong: He told her "Go, and sin no more." The woman at the well, He didn't pretend she wasn't sinning: He told her "You've had five husbands, and the man you're living with now isn't your husband." But you know what He never told them? "Well, you're a slut, aren't you?" No, it was the Pharisees who did that. When a woman came crying to Jesus and began kissing His feet, they were the ones who asked if He know "what sort of woman" she was. All Jesus cared about was that she was coming for forgiveness. Again, this thread is just getting silly. xxx
  24. Eurovision

    Oh, heck, I liked these songs, too... 'Goodbye to Yesterday' (Estonia). Saying that, I think parts of the tune are vaguely familiar, although I can't place where from. 'Tonight Again' (Australia). For their first appearance on the show, they did really well. Perhaps they'll be invited back. If so, I wonder what other countries they might extend the show to. Personally, I'd be curious to see how J-Pop and K-Pop did at Eurovision... xxx
  25. Eurovision

    Hmm, again, I didn't think the show was as good as last year's. But, it might just be a case of selective memory, remembering just the good parts, so whatever... Anyway, these were my two favourite songs this year: 'Rhythm Inside' (Belgium). The performer (who wrote the song) is only 19, by the way. I've had this song stuck in my head for days now. 'A Monster Like Me' (Norway). xxx