WhiteDove
-
Posts
4,300 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Gallery
Everything posted by WhiteDove
-
No John it still does not. I don't post under or email under the names of people I may live with. I don't know I have a name and I tend to,just for fun,use it.
-
Well Johniam You might pass on to him that he just might wanna be a man instead of being deceptive, and posing as a woman, then changing his name several times. If he has something to say have some guts! Say it and stand behind your words. For someone so concerned about integrity he seems to have missed the lesson for himself.
-
Very nice david !!!
-
Well now the kitty is out of the bag..... Congratulations to you both!
-
Paw you have a PT message Thanks
-
Catcup I had a run in with this person also over something I posted on Chris G**r. I'd stay clear.
-
Ha shellon I'm not falling for that one if I tell ya then they wont be things ya don't know now will they....
-
Galen Any ideas how something like this could happen? Seems odd to me. And do we reeeeeally want these people having nuclear weapons?
-
Yeah
-
EEk I better stock up on my Canada Dry mixers they may be next.
-
Surely you haven't erased from the table of your heart, "Love never fails"? No. I just think it needs to be balanced with scripture. And even then sometimes it still gets screwed up. I've seen too much go on in the name of love. Man's ideas on what is loving. Open humiliation, ruined marriages,dumping people who had years of service to God's family, and persecution of gay people and the list goes on. WERE ALL DONE UNDER THE GUISE OF LOVE.
-
Galen In the upper right corner where it says Notifications in your Priv message screen, if you click on that you can check the box and it will email you, I just got one today so it is working .
-
I also hesitate to jump back in here and I don't have much to add to what mark already posted except this line bothers me Quote And what's more, when one considers the violence committed against others who used that particular section as their justification and motivation for abusing, harming and even murdering others they deemed different from themselves - then is it unreasonable to question the authenticity of that section on the basis of it's rotten "fruits"? ("By their fruits ye shall know them" ?) Peoples actions are what they are. We can't erase parts of scripture because people do things. Scripture does not justify Harm,ill treatment, or killing people. My concern like Mark was that we can't pick n choose what parts of scripture we like left in or out. If we do that then at some point all the verses will be left out by someone. If we let the love of christ decide scripture then who decides what is love and not . Some would say that to remind people of their sin is to be loving as you are helping them to change. It is like "the spirit told me" everyone has a different revelation because the spirit told them something different than the next guy.
-
Well said Mark My other post was getting too long but I wanted to include this about opinions that someone wrote and I found to be helpful. maybe it will be for you also. No matter who you are or what you do,the harsh reality of life is that some people will love you,some people will hate you,and some will never care one way or another. The sooner we learn this,the easier it will be to let go of other people's negative opinions. No one is immune from the attacks of others-that's just life. the more you try to do something and commit yourself to anything,the stronger the opinions will be for you and against you. Some attacks are harsh to break you down.Some attacks are mean-hearted to get you to feel bad. Some attacks are sympathetically critical designed to sneak up on you and stab you in the back. Some attacks are disguised as in your best interest so you let down your guard. Some attacks are intellectually intricate in order to misdirect you. Most of these attacks are just people's opinions,their perspective,their veiw-even if it is based on scripture. The first thing we must do is realize who we are as God's sons and daughters and what God has done for us in Christ. Then we must know where we are going and why we are doing the things we are doing. After this,let people have their opinions. I am not saying that I am perfect or that I can't make a mistake. So when people say things, I will listen but then I need to sort out the statements and see if they really do apply to me or if they are just opinions. People criticized Christ's actions and his decisions. They attacked his words,his personal life and his followers. They tried to bait him and trick him. His own friends and family attacked him and finally,even as he was dying,they attacked him. But he knew who he was and where he was going and he moved on- Thank God he did!
-
QUOTE]Originally posted by vickles: I disagree with you on that one, white dove...there is a question on whethter it is scripture that makes the church nonsupportive. Hence the site I pointed to at the beginning of this thread. ------------------------------------------------ Vickles Eating meat on Friday is tradition for Catholics Not Biblical. Trust me on this Vic, (I grew up almost as Catholic as Excathedra) All 3 of my Aunts were Sisters of Charity one being assistant to the Mother Superior and I spent 12 years in Catholic school. It began with another tradition Good Friday the day they thought Jesus died. Back in the day, if you wanted to eat meat, you had to buy a young animal, care for it, feed it, fatten it up, and then butcher it. Then prepare to feast because without any form of refrigeration, you couldn't count on keeping meat around for any length of time. In other words, meat was an indulgence. But if you wanted to eat fish, you just went fishing. Fish was a humble meal. The practice of abstaining from meat every Friday was established by the Church in order to help people practice self control and learn not to indulge themselves too often. Catholics, you understand, worship God with their whole bodies, as well as their hearts and minds, so abstinance from certain foods is one form of worship that is acceptable to them. It disappeared sometime after Vatican II. Sadly like some other groups we know they never admitted there was no scriptural basis for this practice. The reason given for the change when pressed was missionaries in other countries found it hard to comply because they had to eat what was available for food so everybody got to change to be fair... It is still suggested that you abstain from meat on Good Friday. So in your example it was not scripture that had anything to do with not eating meat it was tradition. Most Catholics today will admit that it is and was a church tradition unfounded by any scripture. That is not a rare thing by the way the order for truth pretty much is 1. What the Pope says. 2. Catholic Tradition. 3. The Bible. Thats why it not being biblical was not a big thing. It is a fine example of tradition being non supportive but not scripture. Now as to your site. In an effort to validate their point of view both sides often grasp at straws like this. Here is another, Jesus was gay becuse he hung out with 12 men... first he did not only hang out with 12 men there are records of women being with them. And by the way I don't think that means they were only there to serve the men. while I am sure that they did cook and such I also think they did much more but that is another discussion. That no more proves he was gay than if I saw a carload of men driving to work and assumed they were also gay. These things really do no good to either side as to the issue they only distract and cloud it. I looked at the info Dan provided but still most translaters agree the text was there. Dr. Wierwille as you remember based his take on Eli Eli on one source Lamsa. There is always going to be someone who will be the differing voice. Myself, I don't think the text is wrong I thing the point is just missed. I think it was Linda who mentioned the fact that Jesus never addressed the subject. Here is a BIG clue! Keep your nose out of other peoples business........ Like in the record of the woman caught in adultry Jesus never denyed that she had sinned but he also never heaped comdenation on her either. I always found it interesting in the Way that there were no levels of sin yet Homosexuals somehow were the lowest of the low How can that be if there are no levels? You know the old saying Opinions are like *ss h*les everybody has one. That being true I'd say sometimes like *ss H*les they are useful and sometimes like *ss H*les they are just ugly. There are lots of things in the Bible that are refered to as sin. I just don't feel the need to point them out to people all the time I suppose my life keeps me busy enough.
-
Dan thanks for the info actually as you were posting I had already poped in my disk of Ante-Nicene Fathers as I had a feeling you may be headed in that direction. I'm headed off to work but I will continue to dig through the info,its been some time since I have looked at it. At first look today he does appear to be a lone wolf in that theory. Most of the others including Luther in his commentary on Romans tend to include the text but translate it more in relation to Idolators than homosexuals which makes more sence to me.
-
Happy Birthday Chuck Have a great Day
-
You are correct Garth he did.... Quote:I've been boring people for years with my opinion that the homophobic section of Romans chapter 1 was lacking in the earlier (now lost) texts of that work. That this section that had been accepted by so many as "the Word of God" is a later production - not coming from Paul- or from God. I knew it was added but I really didn't understand why until this past year.Quote: It appears to be something he just knew But I don't see any sorta evidence to back up this. I knew a lady who just knew Elvis was speaking to her from beyond. Then again she had no proof either.