0
   

Texas church cancels funeral for gay man

 
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2007 06:06 pm
hankarin wrote:
Quote:
Some of us like to think of A2K as a place where folks can come and get quality information.


What's the problem hankarin? Why don't you answer the question as to whether your deception was intentional or due to ignorance? My guess would be intentional.
0 Replies
 
hankarin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2007 06:34 pm
mesquite wrote:
hankarin wrote:
Quote:
Some of us like to think of A2K as a place where folks can come and get quality information.


What's the problem hankarin? Why don't you answer the question as to whether your deception was intentional or due to ignorance? My guess would be intentional.


Based on the question you posed you would not be able to come up with the correct answer.
0 Replies
 
hankarin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2007 07:12 pm
Re: Evolution
mesquite wrote:
quite handy with pooper scoopers


I am sure they are. Evolutionary theory has a long history of adherents cleaning up after each other. Them guys fight using $20 words too. I've seem some real knock down and drag out fights (figuratively speaking) among scientists over their opposing evolutionary views.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2007 08:15 pm
hankarin wrote:
mesquite wrote:
What's the problem hankarin? Why don't you answer the question as to whether your deception was intentional or due to ignorance? My guess would be intentional.


Based on the question you posed you would not be able to come up with the correct answer.


The question I posed was a simple and straight forward. Either you deceived intentionally or out of ignorance. That your post was deceptive is not in question. I laid it all out for you in the same post that had the question, here. (clickety click)
0 Replies
 
hankarin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2007 09:14 pm
mesquite wrote:
hankarin wrote:
mesquite wrote:
What's the problem hankarin? Why don't you answer the question as to whether your deception was intentional or due to ignorance? My guess would be intentional.


Based on the question you posed you would not be able to come up with the correct answer.


The question I posed was a simple and straight forward. Either you deceived intentionally or out of ignorance. That your post was deceptive is not in question. I laid it all out for you in the same post that had the question, here. (clickety click)


The question I posed was a simple and straight forward. (what?)
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Fri 14 Sep, 2007 11:28 pm
The question I posed was simple and straight forward. Either you deceived intentionally or out of ignorance. That your post was deceptive is not in question. I laid it all out for you in the same post that had the question, here. (clickety click)
0 Replies
 
hankarin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Sep, 2007 07:38 pm
mesquite wrote:
The question I posed was simple and straight forward. Either you deceived intentionally or out of ignorance. That your post was deceptive is not in question. I laid it all out for you in the same post that had the question, here. (clickety click)
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Sep, 2007 09:37 pm
mesquite wrote:
The question I posed was simple and straight forward. Either you deceived intentionally or out of ignorance. That your post was deceptive is not in question. I laid it all out for you in the same post that had the question, here. (clickety click)
The question begun by Frank's sophomoric rant would have no meaning if were not for the rebellion of the first humans in Eden. It was never God's intention for humans to enslave one another. If you wish to have a contention with God because he saw fit to establish rules and limitations over an institution that came about against his will, you are free to judge for yourself according to your "knowledge of good and bad" (Genesis 2:17). Just don't expect God to accept your counsel.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2007 12:18 am
hankarin wrote:
mesquite wrote:
The question I posed was simple and straight forward. Either you deceived intentionally or out of ignorance. That your post was deceptive is not in question. I laid it all out for you in the same post that had the question, here. (clickety click)


Please tell me how this arrangement compared with that of other surrounding nations?

I haven't got a clue how it compared to surrounding nations. If you have some historically accurate info in this regard I would like to see it. Otherwise you are just blowing more smoke.

hankarin wrote:
Why was it in place? Was it meant to last indefinitely? Any slavery under imperfect humans was sure to be abusive. God's law attempted to limit the amount of abuse.

Putting into law the allowance to beat your slave so long as he/she does not die within two days is not limiting abuse it is encouraging it!

hankarin wrote:
Anyone who checked the references could easily find all the details of the arrangement as you did. If anything you added some excellent details perfectly proving and explaining why we need an end to human domination of mankind. (Ecclesiastes 8:9)

You seem to be having a hard time answering the question of whether the deception in your post was intentional. Your lack of answer is sufficient answer for me.

hankarin wrote:

So every 50 years bondslaves were freed. No big deal and irrelevant. The year of Jubilee did not apply to slaves from surrounding nations.
in Leviticus 25:44-46 Moses wrote:
44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.
45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.


hankarin wrote:
The rebellion of the first man, Adam, brought mankind into slavery to sin and death. God's provision for freeing mankind from the grip of sin and death is the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ. (Matthew 20:28; John 3:16; 1 John 2:1, 2)
This will be a find end to a "slavery" all of us have experienced.


There was no rebellion in the Genesis story. According to the story, prior to eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, Adam & Eve did not have the faculties to rebel.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2007 12:50 am
neologist wrote:
mesquite wrote:
The question I posed was simple and straight forward. Either you deceived intentionally or out of ignorance. That your post was deceptive is not in question. I laid it all out for you in the same post that had the question, here. (clickety click)
The question begun by Frank's sophomoric rant would have no meaning if were not for the rebellion of the first humans in Eden. It was never God's intention for humans to enslave one another. If you wish to have a contention with God because he saw fit to establish rules and limitations over an institution that came about against his will, you are free to judge for yourself according to your "knowledge of good and bad" (Genesis 2:17). Just don't expect God to accept your counsel.

Frank's question to start this thread was neither sophomoric or a rant, however your edenic rebellion apologetic is indeed sophomoric.

Where is it written that God made his intentions known that slavery was never intended?

What do you mean an institution that came about against his will? God flat out said go and do it. De 20:11.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2007 08:22 am
mesquite wrote:
. . . There was no rebellion in the Genesis story. According to the story, prior to eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, Adam & Eve did not have the faculties to rebel.
mesquite wrote:
. . . Frank's question to start this thread was neither sophomoric or a rant, however your edenic rebellion apologetic is indeed sophomoric.
This is the convenient dodge for those who wish to escape obligation to their creator. The perfect humans were recruited into their sin by another person. That none of these three individuals had ever before acted against God is evident from the sentences pronounced by God in the 3rd chapter of Genesis. The bible refers to God as perfect and his ways as perfect. (Deuteronomy 32:4) If that part of the bible is true, how is it that any of God's perfect creatures could decide to sin?

Could it be free will?
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2007 02:11 pm
neologist wrote:
mesquite wrote:
. . . There was no rebellion in the Genesis story. According to the story, prior to eating of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, Adam & Eve did not have the faculties to rebel.
mesquite wrote:
. . . Frank's question to start this thread was neither sophomoric or a rant, however your edenic rebellion apologetic is indeed sophomoric.
This is the convenient dodge for those who wish to escape obligation to their creator. The perfect humans were recruited into their sin by another person. That none of these three individuals had ever before acted against God is evident from the sentences pronounced by God in the 3rd chapter of Genesis. The bible refers to God as perfect and his ways as perfect. (Deuteronomy 32:4) If that part of the bible is true, how is it that any of God's perfect creatures could decide to sin?

Could it be free will?

Another person? What are we to make of Genesis neo? The author of Genesis wrote that A&E were lured by a serpent and that the serpent was more cunning than all the other beasts. The sentence handed down by God to the serpent reinforces the fact that it was a serpent. Would a just and loving God punish all serpents into perpetuity simply for being impersonated? Eating all of that dust must have destroyed the serpents vocal abilities as well.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Wed 26 Sep, 2007 11:35 pm
Neo?
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2007 09:40 am
Sorry, Skeeter. I don't usually have updates turned on. Are you saying you aren't aware of any possible symbolism in the story of the serpent?

Apparently the apostle John does. He refers to a person, Satan, as the "original serpent" (Revelation 12:9, 20:2)
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2007 10:06 am
In the land of make believe anything is possible.

Are you saying that the curse on the serpent was symbolic, but that the curses on Adam and Eve were literal?
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2007 10:38 am
mesquite wrote:
In the land of make believe anything is possible.

Are you saying that the curse on the serpent was symbolic, but that the curses on Adam and Eve were literal?


The relevant curse on the serpent is the forthcoming 'head wound'.

The 'heel wound' has already been endured.
0 Replies
 
averner
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2007 11:00 am
mesquite wrote:
In the land of make believe anything is possible.

Are you saying that the curse on the serpent was symbolic, but that the curses on Adam and Eve were literal?


help I am having trouble imagining a 4 dimensional sphere yet I know it exists as a mathematical construct
0 Replies
 
tinygiraffe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2007 11:24 am
i saw a 2d image of a 3d graph of a 4d space in discover magazine, once.

oddly enough it looked like a flying saucer. this was also long before "serpents on a plane" came out, or was even advertised.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2007 11:41 am
CoastalRat wrote:
It is not about exposing church members to inappropriate behaviour

This assertion seems to be in conflict with the Church's own statement you quoted:

Quote:
When the family provided the pictures to the church it was then that the church learned of their intention to make the memorial service a celebration of Cecil Sinclair's gay lifestyle. According to a statement on the High Point Church Web site, one of the photos provided by the family showed a man touching another man inappropriately, along with other unsuitable photos.

Seems to have been all about not "exposing church members to inappropriate behaviour".

--------------

Speaking of that bit, can I just boggle at this sentence:

Quote:
the church learned of their intention to make the memorial service a celebration of Cecil Sinclair's gay lifestyle

I mean, what does that even mean?

And how does having your memorial slides including photos where you hug/kiss your life partner (because that's what I think turned out to be at stake) make the whole ceremony "a celebration of gay lifestyle"?

The mind boggles..
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Sep, 2007 05:05 pm
neologist wrote:
mesquite wrote:
In the land of make believe anything is possible.

Are you saying that the curse on the serpent was symbolic, but that the curses on Adam and Eve were literal?


The relevant curse on the serpent is the forthcoming 'head wound'.

The 'heel wound' has already been endured.


14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it [he] shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.


You claim the serpent in this story was a person, yet God cursed serpents to be on their belly. Why would God punish all serpents into perpetuity simply for being impersonated? Then there is the matter of enmity. I suspect that there has been quite a lot of bruising of both heads and heels over the years.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.6 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 02:07:53