Oops...

[crazyfingers]

<DIV class=headlinestory>Better keep looking..Mother Teresa "Miracle" not?</DIV>
<DIV class=headlinestory>Teresa's "Miracle" under scanner</DIV>
<DIV class=headlinestory>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV class=headlinestory>I hate the way this software adds these weird formats! </DIV>

 

[crazyfingers]

Trying for a cleaner version...

So, what'cha think of the quality control at the Vatican miracle investigation department?

Mother Teresa's 'miracle' challenged

Teresa 'miracle' under scanner

 

[ZiSunka]

Interesting. I don't think it can be called "miraculous healing" if she got lengthy medical treatment (over 9 months) and she's still sick.

 

[LouisBooth]

Hmm..so they missed one about a 2000 or so..? that's pretty good quality control if you ask me

 

[crazyfingers]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
Hmm..so they missed one about a 2000 or so..? that's pretty good quality control if you ask me

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;

 

[LouisBooth]

you asked. That's less then 1 percent, I'd say that's very very very good. Did you not think it was?

 

[crazyfingers]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
you asked. That's less then 1 percent, I'd say that's very very very good. Did you not think it was?

I'm waiting for your evidence Louis.&nbsp;

 

[LouisBooth]

"I'm waiting for your evidence Louis. "

You're the one asking for quality control. you showed one example where they seemingly thought it what it was not. I'm waiting for you to provide more examples. you're the one questioning the Vat. not me

 

[crazyfingers]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"I'm waiting for your evidence Louis. "

You're the one asking for quality control. you showed one example where they seemingly thought it what it was not. I'm waiting for you to provide more examples. you're the one questioning the Vat. not me

Hello? Louis?&nbsp; I believe that that was the first and only one that they actually announced.

If you believe that they have made announcements of other "Miracles", please post the links.

 

[crazyfingers]

Repeat:

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"I believe that law is unconstitutional. "

Well I'd say the government disagrees with you since it was overturned and found to be quite constitutional

Please provide a link Louis. I do not believe that the 9th circuit decision has been overturned.

And regardless, you are again taking this off-topic. The topic is about the Hawaii Government requiring a religious oath of public office.

From the Hawaii Constitution

Oath of Office

Section 4&nbsp;

All public officers, before entering upon the duties of their respective offices, shall take and subscribe to the following oath or affirmation 1 do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Hawaii, and that I will faithfully discharge my duties as . . to the best of my ability "

http://www.ksbe.edu/endowment/hawaiian/hawaii/state/allhicon.html

Where is god Louis?

&nbsp;

"I said that I have no problem with doctors taking an ethical oath but the government can not proscribe an oath that uses religious terminology such as a required recognition of a god"

Again, you have not answered the question because it is can be seen as a religious oath, not an ethical one.

Louis, I have said: "But I have also said that the ethic to protect life is not exclusively religious and that it is the religious terminology, such as the government proscribing an oath to your god that is unconstitutional. "

If you disagree with this statement then say so and say why you disagree with it, specifically and clearly. If you have a point, then make it. To constantly say that I have not answered your question is evasive. Stop being evasive Louis.

"That is my answer to your question as honestly as I can answer it and as I have answered it before."

and again, its not an answer to the question I asked.

This was my answer: "I have said that I have no problem with doctors taking an oath to protect life, and I will add that doctors should take oaths to protect life. But I have also said that the ethic to protect life is not exclusively religious and that it is the religious terminology, such as the government proscribing an oath to your god that is unconstitutional. That is my answer to your question as honestly as I can answer it and as I have answered it before.

I suggest that you either ask me to clarify anything above that you do not understand or that you finally admit that I have answered your question for the umpteenth time. But if you continue to say that I have not answered the question then again I can only conclude that you are being dishonest."

Louis, you have not addressed the points. If you disagree with my answer above then you should point out what it is that you disagree with. If you think that I missed a point, then you should point it out. Until you do, then it will be very clear to me that you simply do not have a point. Make your point Louis and make it clearly and specifically.

"No Louis. I disagreed with your reasoning."

No, you dont' understand the phrase thus why I pointed out you probably didn't understand the other phrase I used either.

For the record Louis, the "phrase" was, "So help me god". I said that phrase is the same as saying "God help me". You then went off on a red herring about old language in the constitution.

However, looking at this link:http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2002/Oct/02/ln/ln03a.html

"The Rev. Barbara Grace Ripple, Hawaii district superintendent of the United Methodist churches, disagreed with the deletion of the words from the oath.

"Nearly {*} all of us, including our law enforcement personnel, look toward a higher power for help and guidance," Ripple said. "These officers may view terrible things during their duty: an accident or crime, or be in harm's way themselves. 'So help me God' means seeking guidance and direction during those times." … from a god Louis.

She disagrees with your interpretation Louis. You said that it means "I will do this thing I have taken an oath to within my power." But note that the preacher disagrees with you Louis. She did not say "within my power" as you claim. She said "a higher power" Louis. Do you believe that you are a higher power Louis?

{*} ]Note "nearly" as in it’s OK to write an oath that excludes and alienates the nonreligious.

So Louis, do you have a comeback? If so, make if clear and specific. No more of this "you don’t understand" stuff. That doesn’t cut it&nbsp;Louis.
&nbsp;

"No Louis. You made the claim. "

So you don't think the first settlers of this land were in any way religious?

Louis, you made a claim that I was disrespecting someone by expecting that the Hawaii and the US Constitution should be obeyed. If this is a response to my request that you make your case for your claim, then you have not Louis.

It is not ethical to constantly reply to requests from others with more questions that go off on a tangent Louis. If you have a point to make, then you should actually make your point. It is unethical to expect me to guess at your point.

However I will guess at your point and in response I offer the quote below from Benjamin Franklin, a Founding Father:

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. They found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the practice themselves both here (England) and in New England." - Benjamin Franklin

In closing Louis, if you have a point; if you have an argument, them make it. Make your points clearly and specifically.

 

[LouisBooth]

"I believe that that was the first and only one that they actually announced.
"

so this was the only miricle in history they admit that happened? wow, that sure makes the bible look funny then with all those cut out parts...

 

[crazyfingers]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"I believe that that was the first and only one that they actually announced.
"

so this was the only miricle in history they admit that happened? wow, that sure makes the bible look funny then with all those cut out parts...

Louis, we are talking about MT and you know it.

 

[LouisBooth]

"Louis, we are talking about MT and you know it."

No, we were talking about miricles, that's what you questioned, that's what I answered about.

 

[crazyfingers]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"Louis, we are talking about MT and you know it."

No, we were talking about miricles, that's what you questioned, that's what I answered about.

Louis, you said "Hmm..so they missed one about a 2000 or so..? that's pretty good quality control if you ask me "


If you wanted to change the subject to "all" miracles that they have ever claimed, then you should be clear.&nbsp; The focus of this topic is MT.

 

[LouisBooth]

"If you wanted to change the subject to "all" miracles "

It always was all miricles.

"So, what'cha think of the quality control at the Vatican miracle investigation department? "

They questioned a miricle done.

 

[crazyfingers]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"If you wanted to change the subject to "all" miracles "

It always was all miricles.

That is your assumption Louis.&nbsp; Since I did start this topic, I am the one who has the best idea what the topic was about and it was not about all "Miracles".

"So, what'cha think of the quality control at the Vatican miracle investigation department? "

They questioned a miricle done.

Very good Louis.

 

[ZiSunka]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
Hmm..so they missed one about a 2000 or so..? that's pretty good quality control if you ask me

Casts a little doubt on the other 2000 though, don't you think?

 

[LouisBooth]

"Since I did start this topic, I am the one who has the best idea what the topic was about and it was not about all "Miracles".
"

okay, then you either 1. didn't communcate your intention clearly and need to work on that or change it or 2. couldn't make your point and now want to change the starting place to help yourself

either way, I'd say that's not really too civil. You asked about miricles, I answered about miricles.


Lamb- nope, not for me anyway. If you find a a sour coke, will you never drink coke again? Nope, is just a one out of a million type of thing.

 

[crazyfingers]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"Since I did start this topic, I am the one who has the best idea what the topic was about and it was not about all "Miracles".
"

okay, then you either 1. didn't communcate your intention clearly and need to work on that or change it or 2. couldn't make your point and now want to change the starting place to help yourself

I think that you simply decided to broaden the topic on your own.

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Hmm well I had a medical miracle happen to me and it's true. So do miracles happen? Yes. Things that some can try all they want wasting time and money on it trying to prove is false. I don't know about MT though, I wasn't there.