Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on October 14, 2016, 10:58:59 PM
-
All true believers in equality will join me in celebration that the first heterosexual couple were joined in CivilPartnership on thr Isle of Man..........a great day. Hopefully the secular establishment will enter the twenty first century and allow it on the mainland.
-
I thought this was going to be about the Battle of Hastings.
However, good for them.
-
I thought this was going to be about the Battle of Hastings.
However, good for them.
I thought it was about tiny Mars bars!
-
All true believers in equality will join me in celebration that the first heterosexual couple were joined in CivilPartnership on thr Isle of Man..........a great day. Hopefully the secular establishment will enter the twenty first century and allow it on the mainland.
Are same sex couples allowed to marry on the Isle of Man? If not then there isn't equality is there?
-
Are same sex couples allowed to marry on the Isle of Man? If not then there isn't equality is there?
Its all good.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-36917396
-
Are same sex couples allowed to marry on the Isle of Man? If not then there isn't equality is there?
They are it is just the secular mainland where hypocrites are happy to give this inequality a by.
-
They are it is just the secular mainland where hypocrites are happy to give this inequality a by.
You keep repeating this mantra without ever producing evidence that this is so.
Here's some evidence that some on the secular mainland are happy to challenge this inequality:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/12/19/peter-tatchell-civil-partnerships-were-a-form-of-legal-segregation-and-are-still-unequal/
As far as I can see it is the government that are the stumbling block here - not any great secular hypocritical conspiracy.
-
You keep repeating this mantra without ever producing evidence that this is so.
Here's some evidence that some on the secular mainland are happy to challenge this inequality:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/12/19/peter-tatchell-civil-partnerships-were-a-form-of-legal-segregation-and-are-still-unequal/
As far as I can see it is the government that are the stumbling block here - not any great secular hypocritical conspiracy.
If you have been following my posts on this matter and I believe you have you would have noticed I have praised the courageous Peter Tatchell on his work in this matter.
-
If you have been following my posts on this matter and I believe you have you would have noticed I have praised the courageous Peter Tatchell on his work in this matter.
I'm pleased to hear it - you will therefore have to recognize that as a regular contributor to Mr Tatchell's foundations coffers this particular secular board member isn't being a hypocrite at all. And I suspect the secular mainland is no more guilty of hypocrisy than you are.
If you wish to help him continue the fight against hypocrisy the details are here:
http://petertatchell.net/
-
All true believers in equality will join me in celebration that the first heterosexual couple were joined in CivilPartnership on thr Isle of Man..........a great day. Hopefully the secular establishment will enter the twenty first century and allow it on the mainland.
HETEROSEXUAL COUPLE , IS MAN AND A WOMAN.heterosexual
hɛt(ə)rə(ʊ)ˈsɛksjʊəl,-ʃʊəl/Submit
adjective
1.
(of a person) sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex.
Haven't heterosexual couples always been able to get married anywhere? The news feed says a homosexual couple married and had already had a civil partnership service.
-
HETEROSEXUAL COUPLE , IS MAN AND A WOMAN.
Haven't heterosexual couples always been able to get married anywhere?
The man and woman involved didn't get married they entered a civil partnership - something that was originally set up for same sex couples but is now available for all couples on the Isle of Man. That's the point - equality of opportunities regardless of gender.
The news feed says a homosexual couple married and had already had a civil partnership service.
Must be different couple.
-
The man and woman involved didn't get married they entered a civil partnership - something that was originally set up for same sex couples but is now available for all couples on the Isle of Man. That's the point - equality of opportunities regardless of gender.
Must be different couple.
I feel for all sides. But from a faith side... the civil partnership I understand. But the Marriage side, I feel people are being mis-sold something. Marriage as a status was ordained by God for a man and a woman. I understand that the union can only be heterosexual. I also believe that marriage has a new definition when it is homosexual because the nature of the union consummation wise can not be done in the physical and Spiritual sense of the word.
I see it more of a sense of belonging to one another in homosexual marriage just as in Heterosexual marriage. But it lacks the God joining them in the Spiritual sense.
Each have there own -do we need to have each others? I think it makes a mockery when people already married go for a civil partnership. It proves no point other than they believe the status of marriage to be separated in their definition.
For me the only true difference is that God is in the union of the Heterosexual marriages and he isn't in the Homosexual marriages. The Homosexual couples have fought for so long for something they believe equal to heterosexual marriage. In a heterosexual couple being married and who then go for a civil partnership they show they do not believe it to represent the same thing.
Because if each believed that civil partnership was the same as marriage then why have or need both?
If it showed anything it was not support. It simply showed they did not believe civil partnership is equal to Heterosexual marriage for purpose of belonging to one another.
So if equality was what it was about why did they need civil partnerships in the first instance? Because it showed that Gender still makes marriage and civil partnerships to mean different things. :(
-
Wee point, Sass: Whilst Irespect and to an extent share - your view of Christian marriage, marriage per se was not a specifically Judeo-Christian institution - it existed in cultures which had no contact with the Judeo-Christian religions for millennia before they existed.
-
Wee point, Sass: Whilst Irespect and to an extent share - your view of Christian marriage, marriage per se was not a specifically Judeo-Christian institution - it existed in cultures which had no contact with the Judeo-Christian religions for millennia before they existed.
So you are saying God and the first man ADAM and Jesus Christ who existed before the world was not the first relationship between mankind and God and therefore the oldest religion and relationship of man with God?
Did God not say about Adam....
Genesis 1:24.
King James Bible
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Which Father and Mother did Adam and Eve have?
Did Abraham marry Sarah? Man and wife since the beginning of time. Since the beginning the truth of the bible shows that marriage was ordained by God the two flesh becoming one.
13 And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand.
14 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.
15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.
16 For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the Lord of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.
Outside God where is the spiritual element of the two becoming one flesh?
Outside the first man and woman Adam and Eve who was before God or man who said the two will leave their Father and Mother and become one flesh.
I personally, believe God himself shows you to be mistaken. If you have something that goes back before God, the Spirit and The truth then I am interested in hearing and seeing it. If not, do you agree that Marriage was ordained by God in the Spiritual and only true sense of the man and woman becoming one flesh since the first creation of man by God?
-
I am not a YEC. Nor am I a literalist - or a fan of Jacobean English, come to that. I am in the (majority) camp of evangelicals who accept the editing of the Pentateuch in the sixth and fifth centuries BC - negating its value as accurate history, whilst affirming its theology. If you want to start (yet another) thread on this, go ahead. I'm simply TELLING you that marriage as a concept was in vogue millennia before the Pentateuch was written (assuming the earliest extant copies date from post Exile times.) The conceept was well understood in Babylonia 1700 years earlier.
-
I feel for all sides. But from a faith side... the civil partnership I understand. But the Marriage side, I feel people are being mis-sold something. Marriage as a status was ordained by God for a man and a woman. I understand that the union can only be heterosexual. I also believe that marriage has a new definition when it is homosexual because the nature of the union consummation wise can not be done in the physical and Spiritual sense of the word.
I see it more of a sense of belonging to one another in homosexual marriage just as in Heterosexual marriage. But it lacks the God joining them in the Spiritual sense.
Each have there own -do we need to have each others? I think it makes a mockery when people already married go for a civil partnership. It proves no point other than they believe the status of marriage to be separated in their definition.
For me the only true difference is that God is in the union of the Heterosexual marriages and he isn't in the Homosexual marriages. The Homosexual couples have fought for so long for something they believe equal to heterosexual marriage. In a heterosexual couple being married and who then go for a civil partnership they show they do not believe it to represent the same thing.
Because if each believed that civil partnership was the same as marriage then why have or need both?
If it showed anything it was not support. It simply showed they did not believe civil partnership is equal to Heterosexual marriage for purpose of belonging to one another.
So if equality was what it was about why did they need civil partnerships in the first instance? Because it showed that Gender still makes marriage and civil partnerships to mean different things. :(
Marriage and civil partnerships are different legally. The equality point is that both options should be equally available to all. Of course to you marriage is seen as relating to God but its not to others including many who are married.
-
I am not a YEC. Nor am I a literalist - or a fan of Jacobean English, come to that. I am in the (majority) camp of evangelicals who accept the editing of the Pentateuch in the sixth and fifth centuries BC - negating its value as accurate history, whilst affirming its theology. If you want to start (yet another) thread on this, go ahead. I'm simply TELLING you that marriage as a concept was in vogue millennia before the Pentateuch was written (assuming the earliest extant copies date from post Exile times.) The conceept was well understood in Babylonia 1700 years earlier.
No you are not telling me anything because God hasn't given you authority or made you the authority on these matters. Had you read your bible you would know ALL JEWS LEARN THE TEACHINGS OF MOSES OFF BY HEART. You can believe what you want but the Jews know what they were taught and how it was handed down. I guess you are not for Christ enough to answer my actual post. Not a cat got your tongue, you simply cannot talk out against the word of God without condemning yourself, can you?
-
Marriage and civil partnerships are different legally. The equality point is that both options should be equally available to all. Of course to you marriage is seen as relating to God but its not to others including many who are married.
Maybe, it is the reasons they want to be married and are married that relates the reality of what the situation and value of each hold those who have been married or in a civil partnership.
-
No you are not telling me anything because God hasn't given you authority or made you the authority on these matters. Had you read your bible you would know ALL JEWS LEARN THE TEACHINGS OF MOSES OFF BY HEART. You can believe what you want but the Jews know what they were taught and how it was handed down.
Similarly muslims learn the Qu'ran off by heart; does that guarantee that Koranic teaching is infallible ?
-
Similarly muslims learn the Qu'ran off by heart; does that guarantee that Koranic teaching is infallible ?
Bit late in the day for copycats of the real faith and God to ever think they can be taken seriously. If anything the Qu'ran serves to make people think that all religion is man made but I believe the serious contention of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob through to Jesus Christ has been established in many of the things foretold coming to pass.
We are still waiting for anything to happen with the other aren't we.
-
Bit late in the day for copycats of the real faith and God to ever think they can be taken seriously. If anything the Qu'ran serves to make people think that all religion is man made but I believe the serious contention of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob through to Jesus Christ has been established in many of the things foretold coming to pass.
We are still waiting for anything to happen with the other aren't we.
You have no evidence any faith is anymore than a human invention, including Christianity. Your version of it is more far fetched than most! ::)
-
Sigh. Sass; with respect, as I pointed out, yours is not the only interpretation of Scripture, nor your opinion on its make up, editing or promotion holy writ. As for my relationship with God*, that's between Him and me. If He's happy enough to use me for His purpose, I'm not going to argue. By the way, God did not communicate His word to His people in flawed Jacobean English. Just saying. And marriage was first noted in Sumerian and Akkadian tablets at the start of the third millennium BC....a thousand years (at least) before the time of Moses. * - Triune in nature.
-
I don't think this has anything directly to do with faith really.
Civil partnerships started to enable two people who live together to have certain rights previously exclusive to married couples, eg inheritance tax and that sort of stuff.
It was a big thing for gay couples at the time because previously they had had no more rights than two people in a house share and their happiness at being able to regularise their partnerships in some way, albeit it not marriage, was very understandable. Two gay people not in a 'romantic' relationship were not excluded and there were some.
However heterosexual people were excluded from civils. Yet there are man/woman friendships, sometimes distant relatives, who have shared property quite harmoniously for many years out of convenience and stayed that way, but have absolutely no romantic or sexual attachment - so no legal rights when it came to pensions etc. They could have got married of course, daresay some did, but many would not have wanted to because it would just have been a marriage of convenience. It was an unfair discrimination really and now it is solved, I'm glad. If I wanted to share a place with my best mate for twenty years I wouldn't want to marry him but I'd like to know we were both secure financially if anything happened to either of us.
-
It's only in this case 'solved' on the Isle of Man, and more accurately it's only couples of different sexes that are excluded from civil partnerships. Sexuality in the terms here is irrelevant.
-
Quote from: Anchorman on October 17, 2016, 11:41:24 AM
I am not a YEC. Nor am I a literalist - or a fan of Jacobean English, come to that. I am in the (majority) camp of evangelicals who accept the editing of the Pentateuch in the sixth and fifth centuries BC - negating its value as accurate history, whilst affirming its theology. If you want to start (yet another) thread on this, go ahead. I'm simply TELLING you that marriage as a concept was in vogue millennia before the Pentateuch was written (assuming the earliest extant copies date from post Exile times.) The conceept was well understood in Babylonia 1700 years earlier.
No you are not telling me anything because God hasn't given you authority or made you the authority on these matters. Had you read your bible you would know ALL JEWS LEARN THE TEACHINGS OF MOSES OFF BY HEART. You can believe what you want but the Jews know what they were taught and how it was handed down. I guess you are not for Christ enough to answer my actual post. Not a cat got your tongue, you simply cannot talk out against the word of God without condemning yourself, can you?
Sigh. Sass; with respect, as I pointed out, yours is not the only interpretation of Scripture, nor your opinion on its make up, editing or promotion holy writ.
My interpretation was given to me by God. If you knew the faith you profess then YOU would have known that God gives us the words to speak as we need them. King James Bible
But when they shall lead you, and deliver you up, take no thought beforehand what ye shall speak, neither do ye premeditate: but whatsoever shall be given you in that hour, that speak ye: for it is not ye that speak, but the Holy Ghost. is Christ wrong and you right?
Truth is you cannot prove me wrong. That is the element you within yourself cannot escape or deny. The same words you use now is something you need to think carefully about. On the day the Lord returns you will be held accountable for them..
As for my relationship with God*, that's between Him and me. If He's happy enough to use me for His purpose, I'm not going to argue.
Almighty, and most merciful heavenly Father, please put an end to the work he does till he stops mocking the truth of Genesis and that every word from your mouth is reliable and truth. In Jesus Name. Amen.
By the way, God did not communicate His word to His people in flawed Jacobean English.
God communicated with every man using their own language. Hence there is no divide between those in the Spirit.
Did you not know that excuses you use are worldly minded and that of human worldly scholars. They are useless arguments and have no place in Truth and Spirit. I suppose Jacobean English would be useful to someone like you who hasn't realised it isn't an argument at all. God only uses the truth whatever the language. And the righteousness of Gods Children is afforded to them from God.
Just saying. And marriage was first noted in Sumerian and Akkadian tablets at the start of the third millennium BC....a thousand years (at least) before the time of Moses. * - Triune in nature.
True God book of Genesis verses Sumerian and Akkadian tablets.
Age of tablets a guess cannot be proved. God however was since the beginning and what he says is true.
What does LUKE say:-
35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
Let me see Sumerian and Akkadian tablets or the words of the Angel of God?
You lost again...
Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word which proceeds from the mouth of God.
Did the Sumerian and Akkadian tablets come from the mouth of God?
Let us see...
King James Bible
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
Aren't you adding?
Isaiah 54:17King James Version (KJV)
17 No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the Lord, and their righteousness is of me, saith the Lord.
For someone professing faith you do an awful lot of ducking and diving to change the truth of what God says.
But as you see the LORD God keeps his word. YOU just keep showing you have no faith in GOD or what he has told us.
-
Truth is you cannot prove me wrong. That is the element you within yourself cannot escape or deny. The same words you use now is something you need to think carefully about. On the day the Lord returns you will be held accountable for them..
Oh dear Jim - you've been 'Sassed'.
That's the same as being Tango'ed - but without the frisson of pleasure you get remembering adverts from bygone days.
-
Oh dear Jim - you've been 'Sassed'.
That's the same as being Tango'ed - but without the frisson of pleasure you get remembering adverts from bygone days.
If that's being Sassed, I prefer Irn Bru.
-
You know, Sass, I've tried quite successfully to fall asleep during meetings when folk spout Jacobean language and , as the LORd put it, babble like pagans (sorry, pagans!) in gobbledegook or language that's supposed to impress. It does no such thing. I well remember a prayer seesion when several ministers and elders were joining in praise - on Iona. Minister after minister thundered out antiquated prose such as "Oh Lord, Thy prais manifesteth itself on our lips as THou dost command us to sanctify this time with words of worship" And similar stuff, proving at least that the prayer's teeth were in place if nothing else. Then a minister stood up - a great friend of mine - looked to the sea, and said....."Lord; You're magic" Amen" Yes, it was colloquial. Yes, it lacked Jacobean flummery. But, hey, it did the job. Try it.
-
You know, Sass, I've tried quite successfully to fall asleep during meetings when folk spout Jacobean language and , as the LORd put it, babble like pagans (sorry, pagans!) in gobbledegook or language that's supposed to impress. It does no such thing. I well remember a prayer seesion when several ministers and elders were joining in praise - on Iona. Minister after minister thundered out antiquated prose such as "Oh Lord, Thy prais manifesteth itself on our lips as THou dost command us to sanctify this time with words of worship" And similar stuff, proving at least that the prayer's teeth were in place if nothing else. Then a minister stood up - a great friend of mine - looked to the sea, and said....."Lord; You're magic" Amen" Yes, it was colloquial. Yes, it lacked Jacobean flummery. But, hey, it did the job. Try it.
What I wrote is getting to you. You realised that God is going to stop using you.
Well! that is your own doing for thinking you know better than God. Just as you judge people by the outer things of human nature and not the truth Christ taught.
People do not speak in Jacobean and as for pagan be careful remember what Christ warned you about when someone lied about the Holy Spirit. Blasphemy isn't forgiven
If you pass over Gods truth, it is lost on you whatever language or style it is spoken in.
It is quite obvious you feel you have to edify yourself in front of those here.
But I have no problem with what you write, because I am secure in the truth of Christ. Nothing moves me which you write. I am sure you feel you are somehow more learned and spiritual in the ways of God and Jesus Christ our Saviour. But Christ chose fishermen not the priests in the Temple. Your position is no greater than anyone else who believes.
The LORD can tear down anything you write. But in truth you cannot tear down anything he reveals through his word which I write here. You could ask yourself "Why is that?"
I am not here to argue, it is,what it is. You do not represent the truth because you disregard and deny what God himself has revealed.
-
You know, Sass, I've tried quite successfully to fall asleep during meetings when folk spout Jacobean language and , as the LORd put it, babble like pagans (sorry, pagans!) in gobbledegook or language that's supposed to impress. It does no such thing. I well remember a prayer seesion when several ministers and elders were joining in praise - on Iona. Minister after minister thundered out antiquated prose such as "Oh Lord, Thy prais manifesteth itself on our lips as THou dost command us to sanctify this time with words of worship" And similar stuff, proving at least that the prayer's teeth were in place if nothing else. Then a minister stood up - a great friend of mine - looked to the sea, and said....."Lord; You're magic" Amen" Yes, it was colloquial. Yes, it lacked Jacobean flummery. But, hey, it did the job. Try it.
I am just wondering Anchorman, because you must be at least as intelligent as me, how it is you find Sassy's posts incomprehensible when I, on the whole, find them quite understandable? There was a time when I found them difficult but now think I didn't read them properly because I mentally switched off. It doesn't help our comprehension if we automatically put up a barrier before reading something. We don't have to agree with their views but the least we can do for our fellow posters is read their posts with an open mind and not mock. The alternative is to say nothing. That's common courtesy.
-
I am just wondering Anchorman, because you must be at least as intelligent as me, how it is you find Sassy's posts incomprehensible when I, on the whole, find them quite understandable? There was a time when I found them difficult but I now think I didn't read them properly because I mentally switched off; it doesn't help our comprehension if we automatically put up a barrier before reading something.
Brownie, I think one of the problems is that Sass insists on using a form of English - both in her quotes and sometimes in her commentary on those quotes - that very few of us use nowadays. Somehow she seems to believe that the Bible was written in Shakespearean English rather than translated into it some years after it was first translated into English and that since then, the English language has developed resulting in the meanings of many words changing, sometimes even doing a 180o change. As a result, she often argues in a way that is effectively denying the very point she is trying to make.
-
There are plenty of posts not written in Jacobean English which are difficult to understand but no-one scoffs at them. I've not seen any Jacobean on this thread unless you are talking about KJV quotes.
However, getting back to the point of the thread, I was thinking there must be many same sex heterosexual people who share property for years, ergo there is no reason why they should not have civil partnerships in order to protect eachother's inheritance. Not unusual for two long term friends to want to do that. I doubt many would at this time because of the association between civils and gay partnerships - which I am not knocking because it was perfectly natural for gay couples to rejoice in and take advantage of them - but now gay couples can marry. Civil partnerships are not marriage, so it seems logical to me that two heterosexual friends of the same sex should take the plunge, especially if they have no-one else to inherit. It doesn't 'knock' the status of marriage because it is quite different. If a civil partnership is dissolved for whatever reason, neither party will be a divorced person.
(The above could already be happening of course and I just haven't heard of it but most people would assume the couple to be gay which could be difficult if either wanted a relationship with a member of the opposite sex one day.)
-
Bit late in the day for copycats of the real faith and God to ever think they can be taken seriously. If anything the Qu'ran serves to make people think that all religion is man made but I believe the serious contention of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob through to Jesus Christ has been established in many of the things foretold coming to pass.
We are still waiting for anything to happen with the other aren't we.
You mean like christians are still waiting for Jesus to return, 2000 years on ?
-
Brownie; Gentle mockery is no crime - the Lord used it a lot in the NT! As for marriage - I was simply pointing out that legalised marriage existed long before the Pentateuch was written - or indeed edited. I have no issues whatsoever with gay or straight civil partnerships or secular marriage. Christian marriage, though, can only be between one man and one woman. And language? Sorry, Brownie, but resorting to Jacobean English really sets my teeth on edge! I should use the term 'pre-Jacobean' English, of course, as much of the KJV was simply lifted from the pre-existing (and better) Geneva Bible with some nice flummery and tweaking by James VI himself. While the language is majestic, the translation is poor, and the version incomprehensible to those not versed in the tongue. When the NT was written, the Koine was the lingua franca of the day, familiar as 'common' rather than'high' Greek. Similarly, when we try to communicate the Gospel in the twenty first century, we should do so in a language which is easy to understand. The KJV, sadly, isnot.
-
I get what you say but am not sure about the word, "Should". Though I generally use modern translations I don't have a problem with the KJV, actually love the language and I certainly wouldn't describe myself as a scholar. Fair enough that not everyone feels the same way, the NIV is far easier - but to dismiss the KJV as if it is incomprehensible is ridiculous because it's not that difficult for someone who is sufficiently interested. This is coming from someone who often gets hold of the wrong end of the stick when something is described in modern language! With Biblical passages we start off knowing where we are coming from; if we don't grasp something, there's no need to hold back from asking questions because that's the usual thing when it comes to study (no red faces). It also opens up a subject for discussion.
Nevertheless I don't believe it's right for anyone to insist on a particular translation of the Bible, we're not studying for formal exams.
Phew, we've certainly gone off the subject of civil partnerships! Quite civilly as it happens.
-
There's the issue, though. If weare attempting to convey Gospel truths, shouldn't we use a translation which is both accurate and easy to read? Jacobean English, whilst poetic, is not easy to understand if you're not used to it, and the translation itself is far from accurate by modern standards. I've used it in services such as funerals where the surviving relatives were familiar with it as children decades ago - but for normal personal study, or, more importantly, Sunday services, I'll use a modern translation -or even a paraphrase - which fits the tone of my service. For example, on Sunday morning, I'll use the Lorimer New Testament in Scots and the brilliant Glasgow Bible paraphrase by Jamie Stuart - I know the folk I'll be working with, and I also know the version which will reach them!
-
I composed a long reply to your above post, Anchor - and lost it. I was left with a mere comma >:(! Felt so tired this afternoon I couldn't be asked to recreate it but I'll try now.
On the whole I agree with what you say, the NIV is the Bible I generally favour and have done for years. I didn't grow up with the KJV, came to appreciate it in later life but I like that sort of thing; different strokes etc.
All I'm saying is that it doesn't hurt to make an effort to understand more difficult quotations because, if we do, we gain insight; we usually try to get our heads around posts, not always successfully, when they are complicated in other ways so why not quaint language. It's not as if we encounter it that often. We'd do it willingly enough if we were studying Shakespeare or Chaucer, it isn't actually that difficult if we are sufficiently interested.
Sass and I part company when it comes to her apparent belief that the Authorised is the only translation worth consideration and I've said as much on a few occasions. That's a point of view I don't understand and can see how it gets on a few nerves but I accept it. It seems to me there are far more important things to be worried (or even niggled) about.
-
Almighty, and most merciful heavenly Father, please put an end to the work he does till he stops mocking the truth of Genesis and that every word from your mouth is reliable and truth. In Jesus Name. Amen.
Has it worked yet, your 'request'? :-\
-
I am just wondering Anchorman, because you must be at least as intelligent as me, how it is you find Sassy's posts incomprehensible when I, on the whole, find them quite understandable
If this is the case Brownie can I suggest you offer your services as a translator to the board , because I, with Anchorman, struggle to understand clearly what Sass is on about quite often.
I'd be willing to chip in with a small amount for services rendered. :)
-
S'alright, TV; At least Sass, for one, knows what she's on about. Even when nobody else does.
-
Maybe Sass is an alien which is why it is difficult for us mere humans to understand what the heck she is on about! ;D
-
Has it worked yet, your 'request'? :-\
God usually has three answers they are 'YES', 'NO' and 'WAIT'. He will give the person time to look over their life and repent.
They can repent and so no action taken. They can proceed and eventually their own pride will be their downfall.
But if a person denies the truth that every word of God is to be lived by, do they honour God by saying something in the bible isn't true?
God did not have to tell Moses made up stories. Because God was there when he created Adam and Eve. Moses spoke with God himself and he knew his presence with him and the Children of Israel.
It would all go to the foolish knowledge wouldn't it? Where people cannot grasp the simple truth because it all seems to easy.
Men want difficult things to understand even things they pretend to understand. What most people don't want is truth however simple that truth may be. Is it any surprise that some calling themselves Christian think their position in life makes them unable to make mistakes? The Words of God through the Prophets given by the Holy Spirit in the OT are truth.
Because God is not a liar he cannot lie, the Holy Spirit is truth so would never tell a lie. Moses spoke with God and wrote down what he told him to write.
All things in God are received with the understanding of who God is. It is not if we believe something possible but the truth is with God ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE. We cannot accept Gods words without accepting and looking at the person who spoke them..GOD.
He (Anchorman) has his chance to ponder on these things and his choices then will decide his future.
-
Sassy
I presume you are not a fool, so why do you believe all this nonsense.
-
God usually has three answers they are 'YES', 'NO' and 'WAIT'. He will give the person time to look over their life and repent.
They can repent and so no action taken. They can proceed and eventually their own pride will be their downfall.
But if a person denies the truth that every word of God is to be lived by, do they honour God by saying something in the bible isn't true?
God did not have to tell Moses made up stories. Because God was there when he created Adam and Eve. Moses spoke with God himself and he knew his presence with him and the Children of Israel.
It would all go to the foolish knowledge wouldn't it? Where people cannot grasp the simple truth because it all seems to easy.
Men want difficult things to understand even things they pretend to understand. What most people don't want is truth however simple that truth may be. Is it any surprise that some calling themselves Christian think their position in life makes them unable to make mistakes? The Words of God through the Prophets given by the Holy Spirit in the OT are truth.
Because God is not a liar he cannot lie, the Holy Spirit is truth so would never tell a lie. Moses spoke with God and wrote down what he told him to write.
All things in God are received with the understanding of who God is. It is not if we believe something possible but the truth is with God ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE. We cannot accept Gods words without accepting and looking at the person who spoke them..GOD.
He (Anchorman) has his chance to ponder on these things and his choices then will decide his future.
The Gospel according to Sass! ;D ;D ;D
-
All true believers in equality will join me in celebration that the first heterosexual couple were joined in CivilPartnership on thr Isle of Man..........a great day. Hopefully the secular establishment will enter the twenty first century and allow it on the mainland.
In the noughties the Isle of Man struck Elvis 50 pence coins, they were legal too.
As far as I am concerned, you either throw your lot in with somebody else & make a go of it together (marriage), or you play at being grown ups.
-
Maybe Sass is an alien which is why it is difficult for us mere humans to understand what the heck she is on about! ;D
Perhaps you and some oythers are the aliens, Floo, explaining why we mere humans can't understand where you're coming from ;)
Sass isn't the easiest to understand, but some of the tripe that others come up with, even when they've had chapter and verse (not to mention dictionary and etymology explanations) why their arguments can't work get me flummoxed.
-
In the noughties the Isle of Man struck Elvis 50 pence coins,
If you carry a load of those in your pocket they end up ''All shook up''.
-
If you carry a load of those in your pocket they end up ''All shook up''.
Boom Boom :P
-
Perhaps you and some oythers are the aliens, Floo, explaining why we mere humans can't understand where you're coming from ;)
Sass isn't the easiest to understand, but some of the tripe that others come up with, even when they've had chapter and verse (not to mention dictionary and etymology explanations) why their arguments can't work get me flummoxed.
Hope as I have said many times, your posts don't provide any evidence to support your version of Christianity, they are all assertions. You ask non believers to provide evidence god doesn't exist, but that is like providing evidence that fairies don't exist. The default position must be disbelief until the less than credible, like the existence of the Bible deity, is proved to be a fact.
-
Hope as I have said many times, your posts don't provide any evidence to support your version of Christianity, they are all assertions. You ask non believers to provide evidence god doesn't exist, but that is like providing evidence that fairies don't exist. The default position must be disbelief until the less than credible, like the existence of the Bible deity, is proved to be a fact.
Floo.....we all have a large intellectual capacity to entertain ideas and not committing to them. I'm afraid antitheists and atheists around here are afraid to entertain ideas for fear of getting drawn in and having to make a commitment. In fact when it comes down to it you come across as guys and gals who are frightened that a bit of alternative contemplation will mean and end to a nice mornings hoovering or a trip to the end of the road to get a paper.
-
Floo.....we all have a large intellectual capacity to entertain ideas and not committing to them. I'm afraid antitheists and atheists around here are afraid to entertain ideas for fear of getting drawn in and having to make a commitment. In fact when it comes down to it you come across as guys and gals who are frightened that a bit of alternative contemplation will mean and end to a nice mornings hoovering or a trip to the end of the road to get a paper.
I have entertained the idea of a god and the unpleasant 'born again' dogma as a young person. As soon as I realised it wasn't credible, I lost my faith and don't miss it one bit.
-
I have entertained the idea of a god and the unpleasant 'born again' dogma as a young person. As soon as I realised it wasn't credible, I lost my faith and don't miss it one bit.
So with you then it is a question of not believing the unpleasant.
Of course you miss it...That's why you're on multiple religious forums.
-
So with you then it is a question of not believing the unpleasant.
Of course you miss it...That's why you're on multiple religious forums.
I don't miss it in my life, but I challenge that dogma because I know how abusive it can be. I only post on one other religious forum at present.
-
Sassy
I presume you are not a fool, so why do you believe all this nonsense.
It matters not whether I am looked upon as a fool. But if you believe I am not a fool, surely that would tell you that what I believe has some substance regarding truth which I have found.
Surely, truth is what we all seek but maybe our motives are different for our want of truth.
-
Floo.....we all have a large intellectual capacity to entertain ideas and not committing to them. I'm afraid antitheists and atheists around here are afraid to entertain ideas for fear of getting drawn in and having to make a commitment. In fact when it comes down to it you come across as guys and gals who are frightened that a bit of alternative contemplation will mean and end to a nice mornings hoovering or a trip to the end of the road to get a paper.
Floo,s beliefs are based on her emotional upbringing and not any intellectual reasoning about the Bible the true standing of Gods power and authority. Authority is something Floo cannot understand when it comes to God, Christ and the love which God showed by not destroying Adam and Eve in their fallen state. A state where Satan was allowed to take over and cause all the things Floo hates and where God had to respond to save mankind.
Satan attacks the people he rules because he is between a rock and a hard place he cannot change. He hurts the very humans he has brought under his ways of pain and suffering. Knowing he now has been judged and no way back to God. He is determined to take those people into that suffering with him for eternity. All his evil which God brings a way out from is blamed on God. Another of his subtle lies to mankind.
Floo is under that trap and cannot come out because of her pride. It will take something big to bring her out.
-
Sassy
do you write tales of the supernatural as a hobby and try them out on this board to see what reactions you can get.
-
Sassy
do you write tales of the supernatural as a hobby and try them out on this board to see what reactions you can get.
Is fiction your bag? Or do you just like telling fictional stories and asking fictional questions?
I guess that it is a ghostly tale for you but for us it is more of a spiritual nature.
Our truth being given by the real God and yours being the fictional longing left unfulfilled by myths. :)
-
If only you could provide the evidence, or your god himself, then this board would become redundant .BUT IT NEVER HAPPENS.
And the smiley face at the end does not conceal your venom.
-
Floo,s beliefs are based on her emotional upbringing and not any intellectual reasoning about the Bible the true standing of Gods power and authority. Authority is something Floo cannot understand when it comes to God, Christ and the love which God showed by not destroying Adam and Eve in their fallen state. A state where Satan was allowed to take over and cause all the things Floo hates and where God had to respond to save mankind.
Satan attacks the people he rules because he is between a rock and a hard place he cannot change. He hurts the very humans he has brought under his ways of pain and suffering. Knowing he now has been judged and no way back to God. He is determined to take those people into that suffering with him for eternity. All his evil which God brings a way out from is blamed on God. Another of his subtle lies to mankind.
Floo is under that trap and cannot come out because of her pride. It will take something big to bring her out.
Thanks for the giggle Sass, and of course your take on the Bible is intellectual reasoning! ;D ;D ;D
-
She gets a 10 from me.
-
Floo,s beliefs are based on her emotional upbringing and not any intellectual reasoning about the Bible the true standing of Gods power and authority. Authority is something Floo cannot understand when it comes to God, Christ and the love which God showed by not destroying Adam and Eve in their fallen state. A state where Satan was allowed to take over and cause all the things Floo hates and where God had to respond to save mankind.
Satan attacks the people he rules because he is between a rock and a hard place he cannot change. He hurts the very humans he has brought under his ways of pain and suffering. Knowing he now has been judged and no way back to God. He is determined to take those people into that suffering with him for eternity. All his evil which God brings a way out from is blamed on God. Another of his subtle lies to mankind.
Floo is under that trap and cannot come out because of her pride. It will take something big to bring her out.
My reading of Floo's posts is that she has had more than enough of authority of God forced on her by people who accepted all sorts of things based on the bible and Gods authority.
I don't think it's about pride.
I think it's about breaking free from an authoritarian mind set, that was inflicted on her from a young age.
I think Floo probably employed intellectual reasoning to escape that way of thinking, and probably the damage that had been inflicted on her.
Somewhere, she still sounds a bit angry at that.
Sassy, it sounds to me as if the Christianity Floo has encountered in the past didn't have a lot of love in it.
Lots of stuff about Gods authority, but not much love.
The only thing that is going to bring Floo out, is love and patience.
Love, as in respect, patience and caring for another human being, regardless of what they believe.
It probably isn't pride that motivates Floo, but the fact she recognised how false that Christianity and love she encountered in the past was.
She probably sees many "traps" in Christianity where so called Christians don't know what love really means.
I don't think, she has any intention of stumbling into one of those again 😉
Not all Christians show compassion.
-
Is fiction your bag? Or do you just like telling fictional stories and asking fictional questions?
I guess that it is a ghostly tale for you but for us it is more of a spiritual nature.
Our truth being given by the real God and yours being the fictional longing left unfulfilled by myths. :)
I like fictional stories and asking fictional questions if the moral of the story is important.
I always thought that's what a parable was?
Jesus liked parables and often taught using them.
I guess he liked them too!
😉🌹
-
Rose you are right
and further more one does not have to have religion of any kind to show love and respect to ones fellow humans or to any other creature for that matter.
-
There are good and bad people of all faiths and none.
-
There are good and bad people of all faiths and none.
💐👍🏻
-
Rose you are right
and further more one does not have to have religion of any kind to show love and respect to ones fellow humans or to any other creature for that matter.
I agree 🌹
-
Indeed there are floo and what Rose and Walter say is spot on.
I can't help wondering why religion was introduced on this topic. It is about two people of the oppsosite sex who share home and property without any romantic involvement, being able to legally formalise their friendship in order to protect eachother financially. What does religion have to do with it?
-
. A state where Satan was allowed to take over and cause all the things Floo hates
What did he cause and how exactly did he cause them?
-
Moderator: posts removed. Please note that speculation on the identity of new posters as being some other poster is by off topic. Should members have reason to think any poster is a banned poster, then this should be raised by PM to the mods
-
God usually has three answers they are 'YES', 'NO' and 'WAIT'. He will give the person time to look over their life and repent.
They can repent and so no action taken. They can proceed and eventually their own pride will be their downfall.
Well if we review your original request;
Almighty, and most merciful heavenly Father, please put an end to the work he does till he stops mocking the truth of Genesis and that every word from your mouth is reliable and truth. In Jesus Name. Amen.
You didn't ask or imply that God gives Anchorman time to look over his life and repent.
You specifically asked that he put an end to Anchorman's work until he stops 'mocking the truth of Genesis' etc.
-
The only 'truth' about Genesis is it an imaginative story created by its human author, imo.
-
It certainly is an imaginative story but, like many others, it contains a truth conveyed in pictorial language.
Unless of course one is a Biblical literalist in which case one would believe there were two people called Adam and Eve. Not many of us are.
-
It certainly is an imaginative story but, like many others, it contains a truth conveyed in pictorial language.
Unless of course one is a Biblical literalist in which case one would believe there were two people called Adam and Eve. Not many of us are.
And what is the 'truth' in its pictorial language?
-
You must have had it all explained to you when you were a kid, floo, as I did.
-
You must have had it all explained to you when you were a kid, floo, as I did.
They believed it to be literally true, and much good it did them, NOT! >:(
-
I wonder how we got on to this, from Celebrations? Threads are funny, the way they meander.
Yesterday I read that the first heterosexual couple to have a civil partnership are actually partners and have a child. They just didn't want to get married. I had imagined they were two friends who shared property.
-
I wonder how we got on to this, from Celebrations? Threads are funny, the way they meander.
Yesterday I read that the first heterosexual couple to have a civil partnership are actually partners and have a child. They just didn't want to get married. I had imagined they were two friends who shared property.
As I wrote earlier, IMHO they just want to play at being grown ups.