Reply
Wed 27 Jun, 2007 07:19 pm
"So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. 'These men who were hired last worked only one hour,' they said, 'and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.' "But he answered one of them, 'Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn't you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don't I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?' "
^^^The Sun of man is a communist you can tell from that. What do you think? I hope all of you try to be like the Sun of man for the better of this nation. What do you think the parable in full is about?
"I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled!"
"Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three."
^^^The Sun of man is an anarchist too. In one family? Imagine in one race: the human race. Division is what is wished by the Sun of man. Do as the Sun of man wishes. Strive to be like the Sun of man for the perfection of the last day.
an·ar·chist
1.a person who advocates or believes in anarchy or anarchism. 2.a person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed. 3.a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established rule, law, or custom.
You mean Son, right?
Joe(okay.)Nation
Joe Nation wrote:You mean Son, right?
Joe(okay.)Nation
Nope. Sun is what I mean. How would you know it's Son and not Sun if Jesus didnt write it himself?
Busma wrote:Joe Nation wrote:You mean Son, right?
Joe(okay.)Nation
Nope. Sun is what I mean. How would you know it's Son and not Sun if Jesus didnt write it himself?
Jesus didn't speak English.
I've posted this before here:
http://able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2661207#2661207
But it is worth repeating as it is not widely known.
neologist wrote:I've warned folks about this before; but apparently it is necessary to repeat myself. There is a condition known as mucopolysaccharineurodigitosis wherein every time one picks his (or her) nose a small portion of the brain comes out, eventually leading to symptoms similar to Alzheimer's.
And.
Er.
Let's see.
I forgot what comes next.
Busma wrote:Joe Nation wrote:You mean Son, right?
Joe(okay.)Nation
Nope. Sun is what I mean. How would you know it's Son and not Sun if Jesus didnt write it himself?
This reminds me of an old Star Trek episode.
Anthropomorphizing about the star which sustains life on this planet is only an increase of degree in the goofyness this member indulges in--otherwise, it is no surprise.
Christian men are all an abomination.
Giving your unconditional love to a man (Jesus) would make you gay right?
Gay men are an abomination according to many christian doctrines.
dadpad wrote:Christian men are all an abomination.
Giving your unconditional love to a man (Jesus) would make you gay right?
Gay men are an abomination according to many christian doctrines.
I hate to interject a serious post into this otherwise inane thread, but here goes:
The Greeks had several words which translate into English as love. I believe the word customarily used to describe the love between God and man is
agape, meaning 'principled love'.
So you're saying gay boys is all unprincipled?
The depths of your iniquitous bigotry know no limits . . .
Setanta wrote:So you're saying gay boys is all unprincipled?
The depths of your iniquitous bigotry know no limits . . .
TSK! Principled love does not necessarily exclude
philia, brotherly love,
storge parental love or
eros, erotic love.
Why would you think I meant otherwise?
Jesus may be a liberal, but God is a conservative.
even outside the U.S., where people don't give a rat's arse about the stupid bipolar conservative-liberal vision of the world?
What's really sad, Dasha, is that in the United States, the difference between "liberal" and "conservate" is a distinction on a scale of conservatism from moderately conservative to reactionary.
yep, that is also true. Tweedledee and Tweedledum.
dagmaraka wrote:even outside the U.S., where people don't give a rat's arse about the stupid bipolar conservative-liberal vision of the world?
You mean, where they don't give a rat's ass about anything other than feel good liberalism and making sure they are ruled by their government instead of it serving them?
neologist wrote:Setanta wrote:So you're saying gay boys is all unprincipled?
The depths of your iniquitous bigotry know no limits . . .
TSK! Principled love does not necessarily exclude
philia, brotherly love,
storge parental love or
eros, erotic love.
Why would you think I meant otherwise?
Because that was the inferential point of your response to Dadpad--that the language of the testament did not refer to homosexual love, but rather, referred to "principled love." You seem to fail quite often to understand the implications of what you write. Too much coffee, i suspect . . .
Setanta wrote:neologist wrote:Setanta wrote:So you're saying gay boys is all unprincipled?
The depths of your iniquitous bigotry know no limits . . .
TSK! Principled love does not necessarily exclude
philia, brotherly love,
storge parental love or
eros, erotic love.
Why would you think I meant otherwise?
Because that was the inferential point of your response to Dadpad--that the language of the testament did not refer to homosexual love, but rather, referred to "principled love." You seem to fail quite often to understand the implications of what you write. Too much coffee, i suspect . . .
The language of the NT does not refer to
any form of erotic love. So the idea of love directed toward Jesus, whether by male or female does not carry any content of sexuality.
Why are we adding to this thread?
neologist wrote:So the idea of love directed toward Jesus, whether by male or female does not carry any content of sexuality.
That, at any event, is how you want us to see it.
We are adding to this silly, silly thread because we are bored, and because actually responding to the topic is pointless, so we entertain ourselves with responses at least as silly as the topic. Leave it Neo to take something about it seriously.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace