briar patch

[temporal1]

A lot of people are physically or monetarily handicapped. It cost money to go out anywhere and do anything. You have to be physically able to get out as well. Thanks to the Lord, I'm able to move around again. I thank Gary K. and his congregation's laying on of hands that I can get around without oxygen anymore, I can walk through the grocery store without having to use one of the go-carts, and I'm stronger than I've been in 20 years. I've also lost over 150 lbs. Don't judge people because they might be partial or total shut-ins.

And believe me, the disputes on Mennonet are nothing to whats going on out on the worldly forums.
They're muderous, libelous, and quick to accuse you of anything if you disagree with their dogmas- political or otherwise. If I were guilty of even half the things they accuse me of, I would be under the jailhouse.

Great news! Wonderful things can happen.

Mr Jim would sometimes remind how much better this forum is than in the world.
It’s been years but i remember being attacked pretty harshly (on a Catholic site) when i suggested pregnant women dress responsibly/modestly. It wasn’t more than i could handle, but, memorable. From what i notice, there’s no indication my suggestion was accepted.

pregnancy is an amazing experience. i think of it as a specially intimate time between husband and wife.

[JohnH]

Are the fruits of one's life consistent with the Truth taught by Christ? It can't be just any truth or any fruit. It has to be fruit that reflects Biblical teaching.

Does one spend all day on forums talking about Faith or does one go out to people in real time and try to bring that Faith into a living reality?

Getting off the forums and limiting time online is a beginning. Using the time gained to put the Bible into practice is a fruit.

You're in the top 5 posters, so this input is a bit rich coming from you.

Code: Select all

temporal1       465
Josh            274
gcdonner        216
Bootstrap       195
MaxPC           161

And I don't like the overall passive-aggressive tone of this, implying that some of us don't have fruits consistent with Truth taught by Christ and that we should get off forums and limit time online. Perhaps a better approach would be to start your own thread and explain what you do to limit time spent online.

A lot of people are physically or monetarily handicapped. It cost money to go out anywhere and do anything. You have to be physically able to get out as well. Thanks to the Lord, I'm able to move around again. I thank Gary K. and his congregation's laying on of hands that I can get around without oxygen anymore, I can walk through the grocery store without having to use one of the go-carts, and I'm stronger than I've been in 20 years. I've also lost over 150 lbs. Don't judge people because they might be partial or total shut-ins.

And believe me, the disputes on Mennonet are nothing to whats going on out on the worldly forums. They're muderous, libelous, and quick to accuse you of anything if you disagree with their dogmas- political or otherwise. If I were guilty of even half the things they accuse me of, I would be under the jailhouse.

Outsiders,
What a wonderful testimony! I am glad you have found physical healing / recovery.

[Bootstrap]

Washington DC Grand Jury refuses to indict sandwich for striking a federal officer in the chest.
Actually, some sources say it was a salami sandwich. Perhaps they would have been willing to indict if it had been a true ham sandwich.

Not just this case, there's a bunch of them.

Just want to remind everyone this thread is in the MennoLight section.

Did you see the press conference?

I’m the only one who can get charges so ridiculous—so weak, so pathetic—that even a grand jury says, ‘No thank you, we’re not touching this one.’ And you know grand juries—they indict everything! They indict a ham sandwich. They indict two ham sandwiches! But not these cases.

And people are saying, ‘Sir, how do you do it? How do you get grand juries—these are tough, serious people—to look at prosecutors and say, come on, give us a break?’ Nobody’s ever seen anything like it before.

The fake news won’t tell you this, but it’s true: they bring these silly charges, desperate charges, and even the jurors say, ‘This is too silly even for Washington, D.C.’ That’s a big statement. Very big.

So when they say nobody’s ever done this before—they’re right! Nobody else has ever had charges so flimsy that grand juries, 99.9% rubber stampers, actually laughed them out of the room. We’re making history, folks. Big, beautiful history.

[ken_sylvania]

Washington DC Grand Jury refuses to indict sandwich for striking a federal officer in the chest.
Actually, some sources say it was a salami sandwich. Perhaps they would have been willing to indict if it had been a true ham sandwich.

Not just this case, there's a bunch of them.

Just want to remind everyone this thread is in the MennoLight section.

Did you see the press conference?

I’m the only one who can get charges so ridiculous—so weak, so pathetic—that even a grand jury says, ‘No thank you, we’re not touching this one.’ And you know grand juries—they indict everything! They indict a ham sandwich. They indict two ham sandwiches! But not these cases.

And people are saying, ‘Sir, how do you do it? How do you get grand juries—these are tough, serious people—to look at prosecutors and say, come on, give us a break?’ Nobody’s ever seen anything like it before.

The fake news won’t tell you this, but it’s true: they bring these silly charges, desperate charges, and even the jurors say, ‘This is too silly even for Washington, D.C.’ That’s a big statement. Very big.

So when they say nobody’s ever done this before—they’re right! Nobody else has ever had charges so flimsy that grand juries, 99.9% rubber stampers, actually laughed them out of the room. We’re making history, folks. Big, beautiful history.

I would really appreciate if you would save your politics for the Politics section.

[Bootstrap]

I would really appreciate if you would save your politics for the Politics section.

Brother, I hear you. I also want to honor the effort to keep this section free of political division—that’s part of why I don’t participate in the Politics section myself. I’m guessing you probably don’t either? I have no idea who does and who does not.

What I wrestle with is how we decide what counts as politics. In this thread we’ve had “ham sandwich” jokes that downplay serious issues, and a video about deportations to prisons in countries with poor human rights records. Those are political too, but they seem to be fine.

So when a Trump parody isn’t OK here, but other political humor is, I’m left unsure what the standard really is. We can each think the other doesn’t have a sense of humor or can’t take a joke, but I suspect the difference is more about what we think should be taken seriously in politics, and how we use humor to express that.

I’m not asking for more politics here—quite the opposite. That's why I have never joined the politics forum. I’d just like us to be consistent and fair so the focus can stay on building up the Kingdom of God. And I do think we need ways to ask how we, as the Kingdom of God, respond to what happens in the world around us. Probably not by throwing sandwiches.

Maybe we could talk together about what the shared expectation should be?

[barnhart]

It's only political if I disagree, otherwise it's discernment.

[Szdfan]

Washington DC Grand Jury refuses to indict sandwich for striking a federal officer in the chest.
Actually, some sources say it was a salami sandwich. Perhaps they would have been willing to indict if it had been a true ham sandwich.

I know that the OP is about making jokes, but isn’t the topic — that a DC Jury refused to indict someone who threw a sandwich at federal officers during the current National Guard occupation of DC — an inherently political topic? How was this not a political discussion?

[Ernie]

Washington DC Grand Jury refuses to indict sandwich for striking a federal officer in the chest.
Actually, some sources say it was a salami sandwich. Perhaps they would have been willing to indict if it had been a true ham sandwich.

I know that the OP is about making jokes, but isn’t the topic — that a DC Jury refused to indict someone who threw a sandwich at federal officers during the current National Guard occupation of DC — an inherently political topic? How was this not a political discussion?

The title and subforum should give clues as to the tone of the thread. For anybody who wants a serious political discussion, start a new thread.

[Bootstrap]

Washington DC Grand Jury refuses to indict sandwich for striking a federal officer in the chest.
Actually, some sources say it was a salami sandwich. Perhaps they would have been willing to indict if it had been a true ham sandwich.

I know that the OP is about making jokes, but isn’t the topic — that a DC Jury refused to indict someone who threw a sandwich at federal officers during the current National Guard occupation of DC — an inherently political topic? How was this not a political discussion?

The title and subforum should give clues as to the tone of the thread. For anybody who wants a serious political discussion, start a new thread.

I think this thread highlights a problem with where the thread belongs.

If the rule is that we can joke about serious political subjects, but can’t discuss them seriously, then we’re essentially minimizing and normalizing those subjects. And if I joke abou the same subjects in a way that reveals my beliefs, someone objects. That doesn’t sit well with me.

The OP linked to a real article on a real political/legal issue. We’re allowed to read it, but not discuss it? We’re allowed to notice the issues it raises, but not talk about them? That seems inconsistent.

For me, all of that points to the fact that this thread belongs in the politics forum, not here. Serious political content—whether treated lightly or not—is still political content.

And that has an extra bonus: nobody has to hear my opinion in the politics forum, since I don't see it.

[Szdfan]

I know that the OP is about making jokes, but isn’t the topic — that a DC Jury refused to indict someone who threw a sandwich at federal officers during the current National Guard occupation of DC — an inherently political topic? How was this not a political discussion?

The title and subforum should give clues as to the tone of the thread. For anybody who wants a serious political discussion, start a new thread.

I think this thread highlights a problem with where the thread belongs.

If the rule is that we can joke about serious political subjects, but can’t discuss them seriously, then we’re essentially minimizing and normalizing those subjects. And if I joke abou the same subjects in a way that reveals my beliefs, someone objects. That doesn’t sit well with me.

The OP linked to a real article on a real political/legal issue. We’re allowed to read it, but not discuss it? We’re allowed to notice the issues it raises, but not talk about them? That seems inconsistent.

For me, all of that points to the fact that this thread belongs in the politics forum, not here. Serious political content—whether treated lightly or not—is still political content.

And that has an extra bonus: nobody has to hear my opinion in the politics forum, since I don't see it.

I think that highlights the problem with the exiled politics forum. The line between something that’s political and not political is already fuzzy but the criteria on this forum between political and non-political is also completely arbitrary and depends on whether people agree with it or not.

Making a joke about deporting people is a political comment, even if it’s intended as a joke.