13 May 05
2 edits
Originally posted by NemesioAs far as definitions go, I suppose that any woman who enjoys the arsenokoitai of any other woman in her leisure time, or any man who takes the proverbial 'it' up the arsenokoitai should cover it.
As for the arsenokoitai ...
Anyway, you raise essentially the same thing I did: is what St Paul
considered to be homosexuality (the sort of cultic, orgiastic
homosexuality of Greco-Roman culture) analagous to modern
homosexuality ...[text shortened]... ion of it (or its theoretical
sinfulness) still apply?
Nemesio
Anyway, I agree- those Greeks were terribly immoral by today's standards. These days, as I understand it, homosexual practices have become very savoury indeed. Sure, for the birds it's mainly growing beards, and for the blokes it's mostly criticising other people's curtains in a sarcastic, fruity tone.
No depravity there!!!
😀
SJEG
13 May 05
Originally posted by Conrau KIf God is all powerful and all knowing, how did he get himself into a situation where he had to sacrifice is only son?
The bible is divinely inspired, supposedly. Many of the other bookd 'burnt' were considered aporcryphal. And if you thinks homosexuality is wrong then dont practise it, if you feel its right i don't think God cares. GOd sent his only son to be crucified for our own sake. If he loves us that much then this subject should not be an issue.
13 May 05
Originally posted by no1marauder#1, occasionally when the Terri Schiavo case was going on I would ask people who were against her being "starved " by her husband if they had the same level of anger at God for allowing his son to die. Those were short conversations.
How so? It seems a reasonable question; got an answer?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
14 May 05
Originally posted by K0hlerBecause God gave free will to mankind. The ability to choose what is right and wrong. Through Moses God gave the law, through Jesus he gave truth and through his dying gave us salvation from our sins. Jesus is the living beread whivh gives life to everything and to ensure that his poeple could be saved he died to make a new covenant. A covenant in which he was the new lamb that could take away the sins of the world.
If God is all powerful and all knowing, how did he get himself into a situation where he had to sacrifice is only son?
Jesus' death was fulfillment of the scripitures and was inevtiable because of his teachings, Jesus could not have taught to the poeple if he did not want to be crucified.
15 May 05
Originally posted by kirksey957
#1, occasionally when the Terri Schiavo case was going on I would ask people who were against her being "starved " by her husband if they had the same level of anger at God for allowing his son to die. Those were short conversations.
Are you really that ignorant, uninformed and stupid ?
15 May 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeBecause the word starved has connotations of abuse in this case. My opinion is that she was not abused by the withholding of food and water, but as you know we will disagree on that. There is no reason to begin a new thread on her.
for instance why do you write "starved" instead of starved without " " in your post ?
15 May 05
1 edit
Originally posted by ivanhoeActually, she wasn't "starved by her husband" at all; the Court determined that her wishes were she would have not wanted to be fed by a feeding tube under the circumstances. Her husband's wishes were legally irrelevant; so if you're going to say Kirksey was misinformed, you should correct him on that point. "Starve" can mean to die from lack of food or to suffer extreme hunger according to my dictionary; Terri couldn't have food or suffer at all in her physical condition, so starve doesn't fit the definitions in Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary.
for instance why do you write "starved" instead of starved without " " in your post ?
15 May 05
2 edits
Originally posted by kirksey957Kirk: " ...... occasionally when the Terri Schiavo case was going on I would ask people who were against her being "starved " by her husband if they had the same level of anger at God for allowing his son to die. Those were short conversations."
Because the word starved has connotations of abuse in this case. My opinion is that she was not abused by the withholding of food and water, but as you know we will disagree on that. There is no reason to begin a new thread on her.
I can imagine why these were short conversations. What you said was firstly outrageous and above all lacking all necessary understanding. Secondly it was a very manipulating question.
Anyone who asks such a question should become aware of this.
Sometimes I find your version of Christianity more offensive and misleading than RBHill's. On top of that your brand of Christianity (liberal) is selfserving and leading people completely astray. You don't believe in God but you ask God to believe in you.