Hijack Haven

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

any marriage in the sumerian culture or other pre-flood civilizations. You don’t mean the actual marriage though right as in they are real people but more the allegorical sense of the marriage of the first man and woman after creation, right?[/quote]No. I do not mean that. Neither did Jesus. I mean as in actual historical first humans created as reported whose archetypical marriage stands for all time until the final resurrection as THE foundation of what marriage is. Like Jesus said. Restored and further exalted in Christ. The last Adam.
[/quote]

If you could only see the irony.[/quote]If dearest Christopher would be so gracious and mercifully condescending as to illuminate his woefully ignorant brother, this sorry state of affairs could be remedied forthwith.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

any marriage in the sumerian culture or other pre-flood civilizations. You don’t mean the actual marriage though right as in they are real people but more the allegorical sense of the marriage of the first man and woman after creation, right?[/quote]No. I do not mean that. Neither did Jesus. I mean as in actual historical first humans created as reported whose archetypical marriage stands for all time until the final resurrection as THE foundation of what marriage is. Like Jesus said. Restored and further exalted in Christ. The last Adam.
[/quote]

If you could only see the irony.[/quote]If dearest Christopher would be so gracious and mercifully condescending as to illuminate his woefully ignorant brother, this sorry state of affairs could be remedied forthwith.
[/quote]

The above was written by the heretic member of a schismatic church; by one who denies outright the authority of the Catholic Church as decreed by God himself from human lips in Matthew 16:18.

EDIT: fixed tag…though they don’t seem to take, recently.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

any marriage in the sumerian culture or other pre-flood civilizations. You don’t mean the actual marriage though right as in they are real people but more the allegorical sense of the marriage of the first man and woman after creation, right?[/quote]No. I do not mean that. Neither did Jesus. I mean as in actual historical first humans created as reported whose archetypical marriage stands for all time until the final resurrection as THE foundation of what marriage is. Like Jesus said. Restored and further exalted in Christ. The last Adam.
[/quote]

So…no, they’re not real people as in they definitively existed?? I think you mean they are an archetype to embody which is cool

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

any marriage in the sumerian culture or other pre-flood civilizations. You don’t mean the actual marriage though right as in they are real people but more the allegorical sense of the marriage of the first man and woman after creation, right?[/quote]No. I do not mean that. Neither did Jesus. I mean as in actual historical first humans created as reported whose archetypical marriage stands for all time until the final resurrection as THE foundation of what marriage is. Like Jesus said. Restored and further exalted in Christ. The last Adam.
[/quote]

So…no, they’re not real people as in they definitively existed?? I think you mean they are an archetype to embody which is cool[/quote]

He believes they are real people. One real man. One real woman. Not metaphors. As do I.

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

any marriage in the sumerian culture or other pre-flood civilizations. You don’t mean the actual marriage though right as in they are real people but more the allegorical sense of the marriage of the first man and woman after creation, right?[/quote]No. I do not mean that. Neither did Jesus. I mean as in actual historical first humans created as reported whose archetypical marriage stands for all time until the final resurrection as THE foundation of what marriage is. Like Jesus said. Restored and further exalted in Christ. The last Adam.
[/quote]

If you could only see the irony.[/quote]If dearest Christopher would be so gracious and mercifully condescending as to illuminate his woefully ignorant brother, this sorry state of affairs could be remedied forthwith.
[/quote]

The above was written by the heretic member of a schismatic church; by one who denies outright the authority of the Catholic Church as decreed by God himself from human lips in Matthew 16:18.
[/quote]

Mt. 16:19, 18:18.

[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< the authority of the Catholic Church as decreed by God himself from human lips in Matthew 16:18.
[/quote]If you only knew how sincerely I actually wish that that were true. I’m being quite serious.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< the authority of the Catholic Church as decreed by God himself from human lips in Matthew 16:18.
[/quote]If you only knew how sincerely I actually wish that that were true. I’m being quite serious.
[/quote]

If it’s not true, I have some questions for you. Ready?

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:<<< the authority of the Catholic Church as decreed by God himself from human lips in Matthew 16:18.
[/quote]If you only knew how sincerely I actually wish that that were true. I’m being quite serious.
[/quote]

If it’s not true, I have some questions for you. Ready?

No I am not ready.

No I am not ready.

See? I can echo too. Go ahead Chris, but I am still behind with Joab’s contingency question and KK’s last post which is a month’s worth of discussion by itself. Have I missed anybody. Feel free to chime in?

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
No I am not ready.

No I am not ready.

See? I can echo too. Go ahead Chris, but I am still behind with Joab’s contingency question and KK’s last post which is a month’s worth of discussion by itself. Have I missed anybody. Feel free to chime in?[/quote]

If there is not an authoritative Church with a visible head, how do we know the Bible is true and which books are in the Bible? The reason I ask is several fold, but one is that I haven’t found a list of the books in the Bible nor a declaration that all the books in the Bible are correct–in the Bible.

So, if the Bible is our sole rule of faith, how do we know what is the rule (mine or yours with the seven books the reformers took out of the Canon) of faith and how do we know it is true?

Ummm with or without the authoritative church you will not KNOW what is true, at least not in this life/incarnation. With or without that church it is a matter of faith, no?

No one is asking you to patrol the forums - but you pipe up often (on your own initiative) to complain about the lack of civility. That’s fine, but for the fact that your complaints always skew in one direction. That makes it difficult to take your complaints seriously.[/quote]

? Always? I gave an example in the text you quoted above.

[quote][quote]As for me, I prefer civil, substantive debates, but there’s no need for kid gloves. I am fine with the “House of Commons”-style exchange. A little feistiness doesn’t bother me, as long it’s back up with good arguments.

You complain about this a lot (with respect to me in particular), but I’m just not persuaded by it. Seriously, as much as you seem to worry about my “inflammatory” posting and feel the need to comment on it, we get virtual radio silence from you on the “inflammatory” posts from colleagues who share your opinions.

Respond to whomever you like, that is your prerogative - but don’t expect any of us to actually believe this “above the fray, civility above all else” approach you are advocating in light of your inconsistency.[/quote]

I am striving not to be inconsistent, but to be honest, I neither expect nor require you to “buy into it.”

My old man used to always say, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” How many posters over the years have bluntly asked you to stop and then quit arguing with you? You can continue to blame others if you would like, but then to use silence from “the other side” as evidence of your position is silly at best. This is especially true when there hasn’t been silence.

Of course this is just my opinion. I’m rather certain you will disregard it again.

[quote]storey420 wrote:
Ummm with or without the authoritative church you will not KNOW what is true, at least not in this life/incarnation. With or without that church it is a matter of faith, no?[/quote]

As far as I can tell. I still haven’t figured it out. Everyone tells my Church is wrong…but, if it’s wrong and I discard it…I don’t even have a circle to reason with. I just have a bunch of people telling me their bible is right.

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

I am striving not to be inconsistent.[/quote]

Well, you’re failing at it.

Stop what, Gambit? Stop telling them what I think?

I’m not “blaming” anyone for anything, so stop projecting. I am happy to debate on the merits - that’s why I come here, and there’s no other reason. And though I don’t typically disclose these kinds of things, I receive quite a few PMs whose tone and substance suggest quite the opposite of your Perpetual Lament against me.

The “silence” has come from you, chief, not others.

You try and cultivate this “above the fray” attitude - that you simply prefer civil debate and are turned off by invective. Fine, but when was the last time you did that with the mouthy types that agree with you, for example, on gay marriage?

You spend entirely too much time worrying with me on this subject. But if you were truly bothered by it, we would see some consistency from you. We don’t. You’ll pester me in multiple threads about me not being very nice to some poster, but whistle past the others that (conveniently) share your political views.

I’m flattered, but if you actually prefer civility, your efforts are better spent on the “everyone who disagrees with me is a bigot” crowd, or the “I will nastily insult you for being religious even when your religion isn’t part of the topic”.

Probably. It doesn’t have to be that way, but for now, it is.

You guys ever had a good back-and-forth about vacination?

Search is giving me nothing good. But I’m not claiming to be good at using google either, lol.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
You guys ever had a good back-and-forth about vacination?

Search is giving me nothing good. But I’m not claiming to be good at using google either, lol.

[/quote]

There was something on here a while back, maybe two years ago, possibly three, when the flu was going around really bad, and a few posters got into pretty good debate about vaccinations. There were really good arguments on both sides, with the “vaccination side” getting a pretty good defense from a poster with a name similar to apbt#### who had a picture of a pit bull as his avatar, and who apparently worked at a pharm company developing such vaccines.

I had never thought about it until my son was born, and then I went through a really hard spot trying to decide what I wanted him to have or not have, and how much was really necessary and if certain things were not just an unnecessary danger to his life.

I’ve never had a flu shot and I NEVER get the flu. Yet, I meet people all the time who get the shot then get the damned flu anyway.

I’m not saying one thing or another, other than it is a hard topic and yeah, an interesting one.

I’ll see if I can drudge up that thread, but no promises.

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
You guys ever had a good back-and-forth about vacination?

Search is giving me nothing good. But I’m not claiming to be good at using google either, lol.

[/quote]

There was something on here a while back, maybe two years ago, possibly three, when the flu was going around really bad, and a few posters got into pretty good debate about vaccinations. There were really good arguments on both sides, with the “vaccination side” getting a pretty good defense from a poster with a name similar to apbt#### who had a picture of a pit bull as his avatar, and who apparently worked at a pharm company developing such vaccines.

I had never thought about it until my son was born, and then I went through a really hard spot trying to decide what I wanted him to have or not have, and how much was really necessary and if certain things were not just an unnecessary danger to his life.

I’ve never had a flu shot and I NEVER get the flu. Yet, I meet people all the time who get the shot then get the damned flu anyway.

I’m not saying one thing or another, other than it is a hard topic and yeah, an interesting one.

I’ll see if I can drudge up that thread, but no promises. [/quote]

NICE!

I only got the flu shot AFTER I got swine. That shit kicked my ass, and with an infant I figured I would “play the odds” and get one before she was born so as to hope to not be down with the flu again while my wife needed me…

I had some reservations about the vacines as well.

I don’t have a horse in the race, certainly my opinion and my actions, but I would love to hear the debate.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
You guys ever had a good back-and-forth about vacination?

Search is giving me nothing good. But I’m not claiming to be good at using google either, lol.

[/quote]

There was something on here a while back, maybe two years ago, possibly three, when the flu was going around really bad, and a few posters got into pretty good debate about vaccinations. There were really good arguments on both sides, with the “vaccination side” getting a pretty good defense from a poster with a name similar to apbt#### who had a picture of a pit bull as his avatar, and who apparently worked at a pharm company developing such vaccines.

I had never thought about it until my son was born, and then I went through a really hard spot trying to decide what I wanted him to have or not have, and how much was really necessary and if certain things were not just an unnecessary danger to his life.

I’ve never had a flu shot and I NEVER get the flu. Yet, I meet people all the time who get the shot then get the damned flu anyway.

I’m not saying one thing or another, other than it is a hard topic and yeah, an interesting one.

I’ll see if I can drudge up that thread, but no promises. [/quote]

NICE!

I only got the flu shot AFTER I got swine. That shit kicked my ass, and with an infant I figured I would “play the odds” and get one before she was born so as to hope to not be down with the flu again while my wife needed me…

I had some reservations about the vacines as well.

I don’t have a horse in the race, certainly my opinion and my actions, but I would love to hear the debate.[/quote]

I found it; or rather, one thread among many from that time. But I think it is the one I was remembering and is a good, not-too-long discussion of the subject that still manages to dig pretty deep into the topic.

See the new Vaccinations thread. I was going to just bump the old thread but it is locked.

Haha. “Dredge” up. Not “drudge” up.

Must have been thinking of Matt Drudge.

/anal retention