Which friend is more loving?

[CRASH]

What if your mom slit her wrists after seeing what a moron you turned out to be?
You walk in and she is still half alive.
You'll just let her die right?

So is this your answer?

I say let Mom die. Why violate her freewill? Heroism? Some high-handed self-righteous sense of obligation? I'm not in charge of this person, the person is in charge of hherself. Whatever consequences might arise from her making what is obviously the irresponsible choice are hers and hers alone. She makes her bed, not me.

I guess what it boils down to is that I'm not a busy-body.

 

[allsmiles]

So is this your answer?

I say let Mom die. Why violate her freewill? Heroism? Some high-handed self-righteous sense of obligation? I'm not in charge of this person, the person is in charge of hherself. Whatever consequences might arise from her making what is obviously the irresponsible choice are hers and hers alone. She makes her bed, not me.

I guess what it boils down to is that I'm not a busy-body.

No, I opted to stick to the subject of the thread rather than jump through your ridiculous, irrelevant hoops.

 

[CRASH]

So you are afraid of the question. You don't really believe all that garbage you spew when it comes right down to it.

 

[allsmiles]

So you are afraid of the question. You don't really believe all that garbage you spew when it comes right down to it.

No, I've explained why I haven't answered your question. It has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. I've covered my position on this thread, start another if you'd like.

 

[Balder]

I expect that the real reason Knight posted this question is because he wants to say that it is more loving for Christians to accost and yell at unbelievers, who are "drunk driving" themselves right into the pit of Hell, than to let them go their own way in the interest of tolerance or being "nice."

If all non-Christians really are on a course for destruction -- and that's debatable --, then I agree that it might sometimes be loving to accost them in that way. But this shouldn't be used as an excuse for indulging in mean-spirited bashing of non-believers or those who depart from your particular standards of behavior. The ego can be mighty crafty, and can easily use these sorts of justifications for expressing its own darkness, rather than Spirit's light.

 

[kerryjean]

I expect that the real reason Knight posted this question is because he wants to say that it is more loving for Christians to accost and yell at unbelievers, who are "drunk driving" themselves right into the pit of Hell, than to let them go their own way in the interest of tolerance or being "nice."

If all non-Christians really are on a course for destruction -- and that's debatable --, then I agree that it might sometimes be loving to accost them in that way. But this shouldn't be used as an excuse for indulging in mean-spirited bashing of non-believers or those who depart from your particular standards of behavior. The ego can be mighty crafty, and can easily use these sorts of justifications for expressing its own darkness, rather than Spirit's light.

Only problem there is Christians won't accost the non-believer at all. If the unbeliever chooses to drive to hell drunk, they'd let him go. "I warned him! It was his choice!".

Edit: The first friend.

 

[Outlaw]

I thought jokes are supposed to be funny...:think:

Some jokes are just all smiles.

 

[Middlemoor]

Knight, where do you get off on calling someone a drunk because they provide a couch for thier friends?

 

[ebenz47037]

Knight, where do you get off on calling someone a drunk because they provide a couch for thier friends?

Actually, he called Allsmiles a drunk after he said something about a friend providing him a couch to sleep it off on.

 

[Middlemoor]

No he didn't, he said the best friend provides couches to sleep on.

 

[logos_x]

Wow!!! Logo's you are way off here (I must say I am a bit surprised).

Every-time you speak of freewill you are confusing it with freedom.

You might think of freedom as the degree of available choices or the degree of restraint.

Yet freewill is more like the ability to choose between two or more available choices.

Ok.

In other words...
An inmates available choices are more limited than my choices are, but both of us have the freewill to choice between what is available for us.

Thank you for clarifying...but I want you to clarify a little further, please.
(understand, I'm playing ignorant here...so that this will come out)
How is restraining someone against their will not overriding "freewill"? :angel:

 

[ebenz47037]

No he didn't, he said the best friend provides couches to sleep on.

Here is the quote, Middlemoor:

In my experience the best friend would be the one who provides couches to sleep on.

:duh:

TRANSLATION: I'm the drunk.

Allsmiles.... keep in mind that this drunk person is attempting to leave with keys in hand.

 

[Middlemoor]

Is that quote any different from what I said? Note, what you posted here is actually a misquote.