Blog or Article?
Blogs often focus on personal opinion, experiences, views, anecdotes or advice. Blogs tend to have a relaxed and conversational feel, such as in storytelling and are generally 300-500 words.
Articles aim to deliver well-researched, informative content with solid evidence to back up the points made. Articles are usually more formal, organized and frequently range 500-1000 words.
Comments
Great Davis. Thanks for that awesome reminder.
John R..thanks for this site. It has showed many of us tolerance, humility, and that perhaps we don't have all the answers. The mind is an amazing thing and this site has brought together many a good one. It has provoked much thought among a few ...dontcha' think.
Ken...you too, a smart guy! I too know Eileen; we both hearld from Pa. and we were in the 9th Corps together. I don't know you, I've heard of you, and if the capiltalizing of God ( in the comment you made ) was all I read on this here blog that you made, my perception of you would be tainted. I am a much bigger person than that and I know there was no malicious intent intended. If there was that's your business.
I'm in Chicago, yesterday it was near 70 degrees. I almost forgot how cold it was back in Jan. and the amount of snow that had fallen. It actually never got above 15 degrees in Jan. and the coldest day was -27 with a wind chill of - 50 below 0. I have forgotten about that cold weather and now welcome the warm spring weather and the 80's and 90's that will follow in the next few months.
People are like that...we go through winters and springs in our lives. We feel, say and think things that in time we will "get over". God is tolerant of all that goes on in our lives and will weather ALL with us. As difficult as it is we MUST weather "those seasons' in other lives and help others who, perhaps are in a "crappy" season. We don't know all nor will we! We have guidelines in life that we have been taught and learned and the big one I work on is Love!
Peace
You are grammatically correct, Ken. But perhaps you have misjudged by even asking.
I happen to know that Eileen (a long time friend) does not disrespect God.
WTF!
Grammatical errors happen all the time when typing online. Have ya noticed?
OMG!
Thanks for posting. I don't know anything about the legal issue that was brought up. My only point was that we should take a stand for God. We are always to be loving toward people, but that does not mean we are to be complacent about attacks against our God and His Truth.
Bless.
Ken
: )
I tried to frame this in light of the blog topic and I can see a connection, although I think it runs counter to what you're setting down Ken. In essence, if a person has an "opinion", debatable and up to discussion, that person is completely responsible for it. It's theirs. If a person takes the stance that they are simply believing "truth", something that stands without debate, they're actions wouldn't be debatable - to that person. Their actions would be the only correct way to act and would be made out of good conscience.
In application those beliefs - or opinions, whichever they be - would stand accountable to the laws of our land, as they exist at the time they're acted upon. I can believe I'm right, but be wrong by the laws application to what I do. That's just the way it is and if we want to change them there are processes for doing that.
So my opinion (little blog humor there) would be that a bill like this HR 6776 that deals with defining support for victims of hate crimes actually doesn't deal with (if I'm reading it right) how or what caused the "hate crime" but what happens after that determination's been made and some negative affect has resulted, like losing a job, having to move, etc. etc. and the stuff that's in the bill.
I don't see how the bill adds to anything that isn't already in place though. If a person is a victim of a crime and a court determines damages, it's settled. I really don't see how a paster could be detained or prevented from giving out a message that is critical of people's behavior, based on what's in this specific bill though. Doesn't make sense. This bill wouldn't prevent the same pastor say, of teaching a sermon from the bible on sexual immorality on a Sunday, for instance, which would be critical of people's behavior. So I'm confused, but the bill itself is (IMO) confusing to begin with, as I read it and I may be missing something.
On the topic - I think it makes sense, Ken. An approach to the Bible as a Christian who believes the Bible is God's Word, an inspired and specifically designed set of writings to give instruction and guidance to man, would logically be to determine what it says, not what "I/you think" it says. It's an attitude that informs the effort. I think. (ha ha)
but as far as this blog, i just can't deal
rejecting the "good doctor" has nothing to do with rejecting our savior
I have become quite tolerable about lots over the years. I make it a point to listen to people more than ever before. I have, as all of you, met many many people with a wide array of opinions, thoughts and beliefs. I have very few people who dislike me and the ones that don't like me are the ones I "thrust" my beliefs upon.
What do we gain when we dismiss others abrutly, disregarding their opinion...not much! Perhaps if we listen more and ask people sincerely "what do you mean by that", maybe we could gain a new friend.
I as all of you never want to hurt anyone. I live in Chicago where much is said and believed. I strive to be compassionate and kind to all. I really really sleep well at night.