Speakeasy forum

Praise

A quotation for your identification

by Ziks511 / January 20, 2014 5:44 AM PST

" Now there is a final reason I think that Jesus says, 'Love your enemies.' It is this: that love has within it a redemptive power. And there is a power there that eventually transforms individuals. That's why Jesus says, 'Love your enemies.' Because if you hate your enemies, you have no way to redeem and to transform your enemies. But if you love your enemies, you will discover that at the very root of love is the power of redemption. You just keep loving people and keep loving them, even though they're mistreating you.

" Here's the person who is a neighbor, and this person is doing something wrong to you and all of that. Just keep being friendly to that person. Keep loving them. Don't do anything to embarrass them. Just keep loving them, and they can't stand it too long. Oh, they react in many ways in the beginning. They react with bitterness because they're mad because you love them like that. They react with guilt feelings, and sometimes they'll hate you a little more at that transition period, but just keep loving them. And by the power of your love they will break down under the load.

" That's love, you see. It is redemptive, and this is why Jesus says love. There's something about love that builds up and is creative. There is something about hate that tears down and is destructive. So love your enemies,"

Happy hunting.

Rob

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: A quotation for your identification
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: A quotation for your identification
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
(NT) MLK, of course
by Steven Haninger / January 20, 2014 6:19 AM PST
Collapse -
That assumes that
by TONI H / January 20, 2014 6:22 AM PST

all religious factions believe in Jesus....unfortunately, the Middle East majority don't so they can't reciprocate. They firmly believe that all 'infidiles' are the enemy and must die. As long as those who believe in Jesus don't believe what they do, we are going to stay their targets.

Collapse -
You just can't get below the surface, can you?
by Ziks511 / January 21, 2014 3:08 AM PST
In reply to: That assumes that

"Just keep loving them, and they can't stand it too long. Oh, they react in many ways in the beginning. They react with bitterness because they're mad because you love them like that. They react with guilt feelings, and sometimes they'll hate you a little more at that transition period, but just keep loving them. And by the power of your love they will break down under the load.

" That's love, you see. It is redemptive, and this is why Jesus says love. There's something about love that builds up and is creative. There is something about hate that tears down and is destructive. So love your enemies,"

I don't say, lie down and let them stomp all over you, what I'm saying and what MLK said was that Love is redemptive for the one who loves, and Hate is destructive for the one who hates. You protect yourself and your country while trying to gentle a temporarily maddened person or nation or religion out of his madness. You don't let him hit you, but you don't need to hit him. Words are nothing, words are posturing, not substantive. You block his actions against you while you refuse to strike back. Rather the way the Iran Accord is intended to do, unless Republicans manage to sabotage it by creating the appearance of a looming new set of sanctions. Brandishing a stick is not the best way to assure your opponent of your intention to maintain peaceful relations. The Administration, and all administrations have all the tools in the drawers and cupboards. They don't need to be shown like medieval and Counter Reformation tools of torture were to the people subject to the Inquisition.

Islamic fundamentalism is a temporary and reactive thing because of Israel. It will likely take a Century or more for that situation to settle down, but it will eventually. It was the bigger Arab countries who created this situation quite deliberately by refusing to allow Palestinians to settle in Egypt or Syria or farther afield. It was they who created the camps in Gaza and along the Jordanian border in the hope that what has been happening since 1970 would happen. It is they who supply Palestinians with weapons. If some sort of modus vivendi can be accomplished with Iran, then that may well lead other militant nations to cool down.

I do think that a propaganda offensive via broadcasting in the requisite languages would be advisable, not least as a counter to Al Jazeera.

The best example of this is the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa. That's why SA didn't turn into a complete bloodbath after Mandela took charge. Initially I thought it was a ridiculous idea and that nobody would participate, but it worked.

The most difficult part of this problem are the madrasas (sp?) of Pakistan which are located in the hinterland, away from government controlled and patrolled areas and good communications, both by telephone and other means, quite deliberately in order that they can be as extremist and jihadist as they want. Some sort of improved road network and greater sense of inclusiveness needs to be achieved. Extremists thrive on division and demonizing people they don't have anything to do with. on keeping away from people who have different points of view based on the same religious tenets. That's why nut-bars occupy places like Ruby Ridge, so they can shut out the world and create a fictional malignant view of the country or the world. It's how they reinforce the Us against Them mindset.

Rob

And in the matter of spelling, UK spelling doesn't recognize the word demonizing. If I were good at grammar I'd be able to tell you what part of speech that is. It's not a participle, it could be a gerund, but a gerund is a verb-form used as a noun, as in Running is good for you. Here it is being used as an adjective to modify the noun people. And that is me about my writing, Toni, and nobody else's.

Collapse -
Let's look at some of your post....
by TONI H / January 21, 2014 3:50 AM PST

You brought up the T&R Act in S.Africa and how it worked....it only worked because the people themselves were all tired of the constant war and were receptive to the idea.....it didn't work in Northern Africa and that part of the country has only gotten worse than it was before, even though Egypt was under strict rule and kept everyone in line thru ruthlessness.

We tried rebuilding relationships in Iraq and were pretty successful......until we left and that didn't work anymore either so your idea of 'some sort of improved road network and greater sense of inclusiveness needs to be achieved' is only a temporary situation most of the time. Nut-bars aren't exclusive to places like Ruby Ridge and as their numbers increase, trying to reach them thru 'love' and/or dialogue is a waste of time and effort and money.....they only want to kill us because we don't believe the same way they do and that isn't going to change.

Unfortunately, you really only see the surface yourself.......and the folly of believing as BO does and many other liberals that communication is all that is needed to solve the 'we will destroy you' mentality will only get us killed faster because this administration won't see it coming.

To be honest, I'm really surprised that there are no protests going on to pull out of next week's Olympics in Russia with all the threats going on, and actual attacks that have happened already. If any of our people are killed or injured because those threats were ignored by the USA in order to smooth the feathers of our ego-maniacal leader when he won't send his own representatives there for the first time in history, I'm not sure what the consequences will be that he will end up having to pay. That is the same 'we need to present a picture to the world that all is well' attitude that got four Americans killed in Benghazi........

Collapse -
Correction re: demonizing. It is a participle, a verb form>
by Ziks511 / January 21, 2014 4:43 AM PST

[The underlining of individual words indicates verbs used as participles or gerunds, i.e. as adjectives or nouns.]

> acting as an adjective. That's what I get for not paying attention in class.

In truth I learned more Grammar learning Latin, than I ever did from learning English in primary school. In Latin you have to know what it is you're trying to say, in English, if your family speaks grammatical English, generally so do you. If they don't, it's hard to learn.

The biggest example of this centres around the confusion of the verb "to lie", with the verb "to lay".

Simple rule, People lie in the present tense, whether it is the Transitive verb for "to recline" or the Intransitive verb "to tell an untruth". Joe Wilson's "You lie!" is an intransitive verb used as an exclamation and therefore doesn't need an object or adjective completion. "You're a liar", is more grammatical but less punchy.

Transitive verb to lie,
"I lie down" is correct, "down" is the adjective that completes the sentence and acts as the object of the sentence
"You lie down", is correct "I lie on the bed", and "You lie on the bed" are both correct
"He lies down", is correct
"He lies on the bed asleep", is correct Or "The dog lies on the rug asleep" is correct.

"I lay down an hour ago", is correct, "lay" is the past tense of "to lie", and the action happened sometime in the past,

but "I'm going to lay down" is Wrong because it is the wrong verb for the action of lying down.

"I am going to lie down", is correct. "to lie down" is a participial phrase completing the sentence, "am" is the verb (the verb "to be" as in "I am", "you are", "he is". In the present tense, to be is an irregular verb.
"Lie down", is correct "Lie" is a command, in the imperative mood (see how annoying this gets}

"Yesterday I lay in bed until 8:30", is correct, and that's why the confusion arises, because "lay" is also the past tense of the verb "to lie" as well a verb series all on its own

Verb "to lay" followed by an inanimate completion

"I lay the book aside", is correct in the present tense.
"You lay logs for the fire" is correct in the present tens
"Lay that pistol down, Mama, Lay that pistol down", is correct, the pistol can't lie itself down, it has to be laid down by someone, it can't move by itself. That's "lay" in the present imperative tense.
"The book lay on the table all covered in dust", is correct

"You laid the logs for the fire", is correct in the past tense.
"You will lay the logs etc. etc.", is the future tense for the verb

The difference is Transitive versus Intransitive Verbs, which is a distinction I was never good at.

http://www.uottawa.ca/academic/arts/writcent/hypergrammar/trnsintr.html

A Transitive verb requires an object. "I lie", without an object means that it is the intransitive verb of untruth.

Annoyingly, Transitive Verbs can appear to be used intransitively as in "Where did the book lie?" Actually "lie" here is being used as a participle (adjective) to indicate what the book was doing. The verb in the sentence is "did".

All I can say is I owe a big apology to all my English teachers for not paying attention 60 years ago. I just sped through the exercises and then looked distracted and possibly vacant and certainly bored.

Because the usage of "lay" is becoming so pervasive, I expect that it will ultimately be ruled as correct usage through simple force of ignorance.

Personally, I intend to expire with the words "It's a f*cking Transitive Verb, you moron!" on my dying lips, correct and annoying to the last.

Rob

Collapse -
OMG....
by TONI H / January 21, 2014 6:37 AM PST

I feel the same way when someone says something like "I appreciate your inviting my husband and I over for dinner" when the correct wordage is "I appreciate your inviting my husband and me over for dinner".

I see newscasters, movie stars saying their lines in movies, politicians, etc. all using the incorrect use of the word "I" in a sentence when it should be 'me' instead.

Now if the sentence instead was "My husband and I appreciate your inviting us over for dinner"...that would be correct.

The trick is to take the "my husband" out of the sentence completely and if the sentence makes sense in a grammatical way, then you know which word ("I" or "me") should be used.

My other 'pet peeve" is the word "its" vs "it's".........

And, no, SE isn't important enough for me to delve into spell checker garbage....Although W8 offers a 'red' flag on a word I have misspelled as I type and I notice it because sometimes I'm not looking at the screen as I type, then I'll correct it......but if the word is actually spelled correctly but improperly used, a spell checker won't catch it anyhow, doncha know? I'm not going to make myself crazy doubting every word I type because it isn't grammatically correct enough for you, especially when you actually KNOW what I meant enough to continue to debate the topic (after the criticism, of course). It's just mean-spirited to correct one's spelling or grammar in a place like SE........

Collapse -
And yet... they also worship the God of Abraham.
by drpruner / January 28, 2014 6:50 AM PST
In reply to: That assumes that

"People of the Book"
Go figure.

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

CNET FORUMS TOP DISCUSSION

Help, my PC with Windows 10 won't shut down properly

Since upgrading to Windows 10 my computer won't shut down properly. I use the menu button shutdown and the screen goes blank, but the system does not fully shut down. The only way to get it to shut down is to hold the physical power button down till it shuts down. Any suggestions?