freeflybella

Impossible! Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

Withholding food from a child from age 0-3 is dangerous. No. I think you lack understanding of child development. It's not that "I" don't understand how to connect cause and effect, it's that very young children don't know how to "rationalize it". Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

Those would be people from ages 0 to 3 years old. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

Right. As a natural consequence, yes. Not as a parental disciplinary tool. Hunger is an effective motivator, too, but you wouldn't starve your child to get him to get better grades. It's not an either/or. Find another way to discipline your kid. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

Interesting. I'd say when there are reasonably good arguments on both sides - vote for the one that does (and has the potential to do) less harm. Especially when the question has to do with one DOING to another. Making it law give those who can, the ability to prosecute when necessary. Anyone who is actually worried about getting caught spanking a one year old baby - REALLY should stop spanking that baby. Child abuse is and has been against the law for some time. The problem with this law and others like it is the government deciding for us what is right. Contrary to popular belief, the government cannot and for the love of all that's holy should not protect us from ourselves. If you have one feeling about spankings, fine, go ahead. If someone disagrees, that's their perogative. Just don't be so arrogant that you think you know what's best for everyone else. (by "you" I mean lawmakers, not you in particular, bella) We all need to remeber that when the government intervenes in an argument on our side, we should be wary. Whose side will they take up for the next issue? At no other time in life is it appropriate or legal to hit another person. Why should the ONE exception to this law/rule/code of conduct be our own children? I agree with you that the government should stay out of our private lives when it comes to consenting adults. And honestly, even about how we raise our children. But this is different. This is protecting someone from harm. This law says NO ONE gets hit. Not you, not me, not any child. I'm cool with that. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

Not spanking your child is NEVER harmful. Never. Not disciplining your child maybe/is. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

Interesting. I'd say when there are reasonably good arguments on both sides - vote for the one that does (and has the potential to do) less harm. Especially when the question has to do with one DOING to another. Making it law give those who can, the ability to prosecute when necessary. Anyone who is actually worried about getting caught spanking a one year old baby - REALLY should stop spanking that baby. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

Why on earth is right. At that age, there is almost no 'intent' on the child's part to do anything anyway. It still mostly instinct. All spanking does for a kid that age is scare them, teach them that their parents are scary and that it's appropriate to hit when you're angry. Of course they don't really understand all of that. It's just cause and effect - but the years 0-3 are formative to a person well beyond what we fully understand. I don't advocate hitting your kid EVER but 0-3 should be a no-brainer for everyone. Who would HIT an infant? Or a TWO YEAR OLD? Like vortexring said, parent's who've lost their temper. That's who. That's not discipline. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

There are alot of theories - one being to prevent masturbation in puritanical society! The penis, when uncut, is self lubricating. This smegma that everyone is so afraid of is the same thing that keeps a woman's genitalia moist. Cut penises are dry and have diminished sensitivity. Before I had my son, I thought I'd circ him. After researching and viewing circumcisions I am a strong advocate against it. Fewer and fewer people, when faced with the realities of what they are actually doing to their little boys, are choosing to circumcise. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

Interesting comparison. I do remember what I felt like after my first jump. I was stoked. I wanted to do it again and again and again. But I wasn't a completely changed person and I sure didn't want to go telling people I was a "skydiver". I knew no one would get it unless they did it. I was bored as hell trying describe the indescribable. I only talked about it when someone asked. Of course then I was happy to gush with excitement. I certainly didn't go around calling people pussies if they didn't want to jump. But your and Pajarito's explanations differ, from what I gather. In his explanation, it's about saving others. Not sharing the wonder. His seems to be about a warning. Did I misunderstand? Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

Fascinating. I really appreciate your answering my questions. One final. When this conversion happens, when a person goes from being one person one day to a completely changed person the next day - is there any specific doctrine regarding how he is to handle his relationships with the people in his life? I mean, if God comes first - what about the friends and family who don't believe? How can a woman, for instance, who is married, become born again and then remain in a marriage when her husband refuses (but say for the sake of argument, tolerates) to follow along? What about her parents? And her friends? Is there some kind of doctrine regarding these situations? Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

Thanks again. According to your reply - it is mostly evangelical work. The Way of The Master, I mean. And this is the part I'm curious about. Is there a continuum? Isn't there a trial period? A time for living out that you've been saved before you go out and 'spread the word"? Can someone, that simply - accept Jesus as his saviour one day, and then begin questioning others as to whether they are liars and thieves? Do you believe that a person can be one way today and tomorrow be a completely changed person having finally seen the light? Is it that clear and immediate? And can that person then start calling others to Jesus right away? Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

I agree. Bad bad bad. No reason for them other than to extend the shelf life of processed, junk food. Smoking didn't immediately kill you either - and many didn't know the ill effects of smoking until it was too late. Now the discussion can begin as to whether trans fats are addictive. I say fatty food is addictive. Especially when being marketed and fed to children. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

Hi - thanks for replying. I see by your sig that you're familiar with Way of The Master. Can you tell me a little more about them? What kind of church do they represent? What are the customs/traditions involved in following these teachings? It seems that most of the site is about evangelical work. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

Sounds like I'm guilty of stereotyping Born Again Christians. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

I guess my questions are for those who believe you must do it their way. How can they lead a less than perfect life and preach hellfire and damnation to others. Your reply about their life promoting or detracting from their message made alot of sense to me. But I wonder how a less tolerant follower - someone who believes it must be done a certain way would answer? Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

Definitely NOT what I'm referencing. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

Maybe different churches have different requirements of their followers? Your and Steve's replies seem to come from a different teaching than the one I have been exposed to. What's your take on this? http://www.wayofthemaster.com Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

Interesting description! So god/Jesus wants the credit? Are you Born Again? I ask because from what I understood going to church, giving money and trying to convert others is required. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

Steve, are you Born Again? Is there a difference between Christian and Born Again Christian? Say a woman came to your church and prayed. And it was known that she drank heavily and neglected her child. Yet she also reached out to people from her past and preached the bible to them - told them they were sinners and that if they didn't accept Jesus as their saviour they would burn in hell. Atheists/agnostics might look at her and see a hurt woman searching for answers or something to assuage guilt or a way to get help or whatever. How would other Born Again Christians view this person? Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

Do you think there are people who fit this description that do it without a church or a religion? Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

Then why do you believe that those who give to others and care for others and have light in their hearts but do not say "Lord, Lord" will not get into heaven? Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

I really am trying to understand this religion/church. I also have someone in my life (not really 'in' anymore but I am still somewhat affected) who is Born Again and I think I might find some peace with the whole situation if I can have a little understanding of where they are coming from. Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

I have a question - quite a few actually - and was inspired to post here by another thread on religion. I'm not coming from a very informed place so forgive me if my wording (and understanding) is incorrect. If Christianity (specifically Born Again Christians) holds that we are all sinners, is it "OK" to sin as long as we're admitting it and coming to church and giving money and trying to convert others? I mean, what's the goal? Getting to heaven? Living a good life? And does good mean sinless? And if so, if good means sinless - why don't you believe that those who do not proclaim Jesus as their saviour - but have led a good life - will get to your heaven? Is it because you believe that no one is ever sinless? If so, what's the point of it all? What about the Born Again Christian who has done a very horrible thing - continues to do a thing that harms people - but goes to church? How are we (the non Christians) to take it when that person preaches to us? How do Born Again Christians view that person? Are you all just as clueless as I am but know somewhere in inside that the answer lies in the belief that Jesus will someday (or already has) save you? Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi