- This topic has 883 replies, 32 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 9 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (TimothyVI @ Aug. 18 2009,21:53) When did anyone, 2000 years ago, ever refer to Israel as heaven and earth? Tim
Isaiah 51:15-16 and this is not all.Maybe you should start an appropriate thread.
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ Aug. 19 2009,01:30) Quote (TimothyVI @ Aug. 18 2009,21:53) When did anyone, 2000 years ago, ever refer to Israel as heaven and earth? Tim
Isaiah 51:15-16 and this is not all.Maybe you should start an appropriate thread.
thinker
You brought it into this thread.
You said that heaven and earth was a Hebrew merism designating Israel.So I asked exactly where people 2000 years ago called Israel heaven and earth.
You then gave me Is 51:15-16, in which God in essence said that He created the heavens and laid the foundation of the earth and He also called the people of Israel His people.
You really have to twist that to make it say that He called Israel heaven and earth,
Merely so you can justify your belief that heaven and earth has passed away, so that Mark 5 and Luke 15 have been fulfilled thus the old laws are no longer valid.Perhaps you may be thinking too deeply thinker. There seems to be no reality in that logic, or logic in that reality.
But then again, I never claimed to be much of a thinker.Tim
Quote (TimothyVI @ Aug. 19 2009,08:14) Quote (thethinker @ Aug. 19 2009,01:30) Quote (TimothyVI @ Aug. 18 2009,21:53) When did anyone, 2000 years ago, ever refer to Israel as heaven and earth? Tim
Isaiah 51:15-16 and this is not all.Maybe you should start an appropriate thread.
thinker
You brought it into this thread.
You said that heaven and earth was a Hebrew merism designating Israel.So I asked exactly where people 2000 years ago called Israel heaven and earth.
You then gave me Is 51:15-16, in which God in essence said that He created the heavens and laid the foundation of the earth and He also called the people of Israel His people.
You really have to twist that to make it say that He called Israel heaven and earth,
Merely so you can justify your belief that heaven and earth has passed away, so that Mark 5 and Luke 15 have been fulfilled thus the old laws are no longer valid.Perhaps you may be thinking too deeply thinker. There seems to be no reality in that logic, or logic in that reality.
But then again, I never claimed to be much of a thinker.Tim
I shouldn't have brought it into this thread. Start nother thread if you want to discuss it. Don't make a federal case of it.thinker
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 17 2009,14:42) Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 17 2009,09:17) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 14 2009,20:34) Hi All Here is a site I ran across that spells out the gay agenda pretty well. Guess what, it is a gay site!
The Gay Agenda
…..
Later in the piece:Despite the tongue-in-cheek nature of this piece, it can, and likely will, be taken out of context, and used destructively by bigots and homophobes with ill intentions.
Hi KejonnOf course, his disclosure completely disqualifies everything that he previously wrote from any opposing view and if you have one then you are a bigot and a homophobe, right?
How convenient!
WJ
No, it shows how ludicrous the piece was…it was an exaggeration about how many view the “homosexual agenda”. That you take it seriously…well, he mentioned you.Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 17 2009,08:27) Quote (thethinker @ Aug. 09 2009,13:27) kejonn said: Quote Look at the homosexual threads. thethinker tries his best to get others to believe that homosexuals = predators, I said that homosexuality has predators. I was correcting Stu who has his head in the sand. Then I gave some historical facts to back it up.
Show where I said or implied that homosexuals = predators.
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ Aug. 06 2009,10:38) To our secularist friends: History proves and people today can testify that homosexuals are predators. Get your heads out of the sand! thinker
Just in case “theTHINKER” missed it.Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 18 2009,19:03) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 17 2009,14:42) Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 17 2009,09:17) Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 14 2009,20:34) Hi All Here is a site I ran across that spells out the gay agenda pretty well. Guess what, it is a gay site!
The Gay Agenda
…..
Later in the piece:Despite the tongue-in-cheek nature of this piece, it can, and likely will, be taken out of context, and used destructively by bigots and homophobes with ill intentions.
Hi KejonnOf course, his disclosure completely disqualifies everything that he previously wrote from any opposing view and if you have one then you are a bigot and a homophobe, right?
How convenient!
WJ
No, it shows how ludicrous the piece was…it was an exaggeration about how many view the “homosexual agenda”. That you take it seriously…well, he mentioned you.
Hi KejonnAhh, because he say he is not serious, I am supposed to believe that his tone is not serious!
I don't think so. Really I do not care if he mentions me!
The picture of the french kiss of two men by itself is a propagation of their agenda, and that is not tongue in cheek, no pun intended!
WJ
You just don't get it WJ. The article was “in your face” (as was the picture) because they wanted you to give you what you already accuse them of. It hit upon many of the stereotypes of the fundmantalist Christian view of homosexuals. That you took it seriously says more about you than the writer.
Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 18 2009,20:40) You just don't get it WJ. The article was “in your face” (as was the picture) because they wanted you to give you what you already accuse them of. It hit upon many of the stereotypes of the fundmantalist Christian view of homosexuals. That you took it seriously says more about you than the writer.
Hi KejonnNo, you don't get it.
The guy projects lies about Christians then, if he thinks that because Christians for instance seeking to protect the sanctity of Marriage is because we hate them.
So like I said, his picture shows his agenda even if he is exagerating the rest!
So think what you will about me too then simply because I find it sick to desire or practice the lifestyle of gays!
I have already claimed I do not hate them, but I hate what they do and resent they would destroy many traditional values that Christians believe in by changing our laws for instance those protecting the sanctity of marriage!
WJ
Not to drag out the point in an inappropriate thread, but I learned a new word, merism, so thanks.
My impression is that it is not used as a merism in Isaiah 51.
Stuart
Quote (WorshippingJesus @ Aug. 19 2009,12:51) Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 18 2009,20:40) You just don't get it WJ. The article was “in your face” (as was the picture) because they wanted you to give you what you already accuse them of. It hit upon many of the stereotypes of the fundmantalist Christian view of homosexuals. That you took it seriously says more about you than the writer.
Hi KejonnNo, you don't get it.
The guy projects lies about Christians then, if he thinks that because Christians for instance seeking to protect the sanctity of Marriage is because we hate them.
So like I said, his picture shows his agenda even if he is exagerating the rest!
So think what you will about me too then simply because I find it sick to desire or practice the lifestyle of gays!
I have already claimed I do not hate them, but I hate what they do and resent they would destroy many traditional values that Christians believe in by changing our laws for instance those protecting the sanctity of marriage!
WJ
What is the sanctity of marriage? Is it not just the religiosity of marriage you are trying to protect? How does someone else's right to make marriage vows have any effect on yours?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 19 2009,18:52) Not to drag out the point in an inappropriate thread, but I learned a new word, merism, so thanks. My impression is that it is not used as a merism in Isaiah 51.
Stuart
My impression as well.
TimQuote (kejonn @ Aug. 18 2009,15:26) Why the talk of a “new covenant”? For Gentiles, there was no “old covenant”.
You're correct in saying that there was no old covenant with the gentiles. But God's new covenant with Israel involved her expanding her tent and including gentiles. So gentiles live under new covenant principles which do not include putting sinners to death.thinker
Quote (TimothyVI @ Aug. 19 2009,21:54) Quote (Stu @ Aug. 19 2009,18:52) Not to drag out the point in an inappropriate thread, but I learned a new word, merism, so thanks. My impression is that it is not used as a merism in Isaiah 51.
Stuart
My impression as well.
Tim
Then start a new thread and I will enlighten both of you.thinker
Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 19 2009,11:06) Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 17 2009,08:27) Quote (thethinker @ Aug. 09 2009,13:27) kejonn said: Quote Look at the homosexual threads. thethinker tries his best to get others to believe that homosexuals = predators, I said that homosexuality has predators. I was correcting Stu who has his head in the sand. Then I gave some historical facts to back it up.
Show where I said or implied that homosexuals = predators.
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ Aug. 06 2009,10:38) To our secularist friends: History proves and people today can testify that homosexuals are predators. Get your heads out of the sand! thinker
Just in case “theTHINKER” missed it.
You ignore the context of this discussion. I said also that hetero-sexuality has predators. Neither assertion infers that A = B.thinker
Quote (thethinker @ Aug. 19 2009,10:15) Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 19 2009,11:06) Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 17 2009,08:27) Quote (thethinker @ Aug. 09 2009,13:27) kejonn said: Quote Look at the homosexual threads. thethinker tries his best to get others to believe that homosexuals = predators, I said that homosexuality has predators. I was correcting Stu who has his head in the sand. Then I gave some historical facts to back it up.
Show where I said or implied that homosexuals = predators.
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ Aug. 06 2009,10:38) To our secularist friends: History proves and people today can testify that homosexuals are predators. Get your heads out of the sand! thinker
Just in case “theTHINKER” missed it.
You ignore the context of this discussion. I said also that hetero-sexuality has predators. Neither assertion infers that A = B.thinker
Your plainly typed words are there for all to see: you said “To our secularist friends: History proves and people today can testify that homosexuals are predators. Get your heads out of the sand!”Your statement, not mine.
Quote (thethinker @ Aug. 19 2009,09:53) Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 18 2009,15:26) Why the talk of a “new covenant”? For Gentiles, there was no “old covenant”.
You're correct in saying that there was no old covenant with the gentiles. But God's new covenant with Israel involved her expanding her tent and including gentiles. So gentiles live under new covenant principles which do not include putting sinners to death.thinker
I've already shown from Jeremiah that this “new covenant” was not a Jewish one.Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 20 2009,14:17) Quote (thethinker @ Aug. 19 2009,10:15) Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 19 2009,11:06) Quote (kejonn @ Aug. 17 2009,08:27) Quote (thethinker @ Aug. 09 2009,13:27) kejonn said: Quote Look at the homosexual threads. thethinker tries his best to get others to believe that homosexuals = predators, I said that homosexuality has predators. I was correcting Stu who has his head in the sand. Then I gave some historical facts to back it up.
Show where I said or implied that homosexuals = predators.
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ Aug. 06 2009,10:38) To our secularist friends: History proves and people today can testify that homosexuals are predators. Get your heads out of the sand! thinker
Just in case “theTHINKER” missed it.
You ignore the context of this discussion. I said also that hetero-sexuality has predators. Neither assertion infers that A = B.thinker
Your plainly typed words are there for all to see: you said “To our secularist friends: History proves and people today can testify that homosexuals are predators. Get your heads out of the sand!”Your statement, not mine.
The bold lettering also does not infer that A = B. Why won't you give me the benefit of the doubt? If a homosexual used similar language and said that he did not mean that christians = persecutors I bet you would take his word for it.Stu is saying that christians = persecutors. Where are you when he does this?
thinker
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
