WhiteDove

Well I wouldn't want anyone to miss it.... ;)

I'm sure we need to cover it again at least a dozen times ,after all someone might need to be warned...........

Not at all Jeno . I see two words marriage and coverture two distinct words with distinct meanings. not the one in the same. Eating is a part of marriage as well So? it has nothing to do with the definition. Association with marriage does not define it.

Jen I don't believe that I ever said I acepted TWI doctrine, that was your assumption and as such as you say (that would not be an honest approach to disagreement either) My doctrine is truth , if other doctrines agree then so be it, if not so be it.

Right, the ones with real word meanings. Not those altered by pro gay agendas.

Looks like folks in Jersey can read a dictionary and understand what a word means and what it does not. Unfortunatly the same can't be said for CA.

now thats funny seems I heard that before. Now where was it?

Been busy the last few days but wanted to answer your post Hap. First I think we both agree on this that everyone is entitled to equal legal rights regardless of any differences in lifestyle. I think we disagree on how that is assured. I think it can be assured by changing the laws to include civil unions and marriage. I don't believe that one needs to change a words meaning to make something fit. We add hundreds of new words to dictionaries every year. words that do not meet the standards of other similar words. Yet when it comes to marriage we somehow have to ignore the rule of logic and squeeze this word to fit. Next Just for the record I have no problem with books as long as they are not mandated or forced upon anyone . I have no objection to them being available if one does not like what they represent simply don't read them ,others may like them. I suppose Hap that around here since we have Fred Phelps and his clan so active that maybe the forced indoctrination is offered as a counter to balance the scale. To have a diversity day and only feature gay issues is however still wrong its a sham there are lots of diverse groups. Just be honest your using a word to slide in your agenda, its not really about diversity it is about gay issues. People should be given the same right to refuse this as those who don't want to read the books. Again I don't necessarily have an objection to the presentation just the requirement of it. This gets to the heart of the issue I guess for me Why can't gays be happy with equal presentation, it seems that is never good enough, they want required indoctrination, they want what has stood the test of time to change for them. And yet scream when, say for instance a religious group seems to get the same. I say offer what you want ,require none. Those who seek to change the meaning of marriage say they are updating the word to keep up with the laws, however an examination will tell you differently. first the changes started long before any laws changed, second most states still have no law change and the ones that do are under challenge. So why the rush? Agenda to change the language to reflect their views ,then the law changes can cite the language as reason for their case. Buy the way I'd oppose any change of an established meaning of a word for say a religious reason as well. You know almost every day I sit at the dog park and talk with a gay man I'll call Frank, nice guy, very funny cares for his dog, appears to be kind. Many days if I stop to pick up coffee on the way I grab an extra cup for him. Originally I started talking to him because he often sat by himself with his dog SPANKY as in (spanky spanky the behind). I felt bad for him because many I'm sure ignored him because of the fact he is gay. Eventually the group grew to a large gathering. I think that has been a good thing for him as well as others. I resent the fact that if I don't agree with someone changing a words meaning, that I'm somehow homophobic.

Probably less than ,the for the church that is there now to put one back on.....

So then you are saying that the Pharisee's did not have individual sins, cause I'm bettin they did just like those in the way yet Jesus seemed to only address them as a group. Why do you think that is? Would you like another example , I think you get the point Jesus did not single out individuals and sins and discuss them day after day. He did not discuss exactly how Joe Scribe spent temple money or how or who Sam Pharisee slept with. he spoke of the general sin stealing or sexual sins only. You think he did, show me......... chapter and verse. So exactly who was that he was addressing in 1 Cor. 5:1? Sorry I missed the name there?

No he didn't that is a usage of a generaric term "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites" it does not address anyone in specific or their sins . There are none named by name and continually discussed. The point being address the wrong not rant about the individual involved.

Not really , You responded in detail about something else. You sent a list of books to read not an answer. after changing the subject from worship to shepherds to warning. None of which were original questions. Your answer: i don't have to "address" the scriptures... i completely agree with the scriptures and with matt. 4:10!!but then again, i don't have to try and make the scriptures fit like a "hand in a glove" with mathematical precision and scientific exactness... Translated I believe the scriptures ,but can't show how they fit with my theories, nor do I feel the need to do so , they don't need to make sense just say, what I say, they say. So I'll ask again where in scripture is it that Jesus ever has records where you see him by name day after day discussing the sins of an individual over and over again? Do you really think shepherds just warn the sheep , Really what would be the point? What would sheep do about a warning do they understand language? Hey sheep wolf out there by the tree....... I'd say shepherds don't stand around talking about the wolf at all and what he does or did. I'd say they just fix the problem rather than standing around talking about the wolf.

I believe I mentioned that warning has it place, that said I don't see lots of records where Jesus spent considerable time on it in the overall scope of scripture. nor do I see where he looked specifically at any Scribes or Pharisees personal life and commented over and over daily on the same subject for years upon years. I see where he addressed them as a group, not where he called each one out by name and ranted about every detail of their life. On the other hand I think he did mention something about a beam and motes in the eye. One could argue that in his day the leaders were spending peoples money on high living, and owning too many chariots, as some have discussed VP's cars in our time , If it really was so important that we be warned of such things Jesus should have felt the need to talk about it in minute detail day after day . Sorry I don't see that happening in scripture. Apparently his concern was not with discussing their personal sins but with overall points of contrast. I see where he warned of specific things none personal in nature and then focused on a solution not the sins . To suggest that it in any way compares to gossiping about someone with no plan for resolve is foolish. It is not even close to the same thing. While having no internet in his day of course , I see no lengthy accounts of Jesus sitting in the temple and listing what every Scribe was doing or has done wrong in their life. who ,and how many times they had sex with, nor did I see him argue over every "the" they said looking for some twisted meaning. Apparently he did not think that was the way people needed to be warned. I'd agree.

Hey Psalmie I think you made a wise choice there. Take along plenty of pies for the weekend if all goes well you can eat them, if you need to cut and run, they'll provide great cover. If ya need any backup just yell and Mr. Feathers will send Dove Force One down for a flyover, cause I know how inept those little pigs of your are. PS since you'll be gone I reckon that means no one will be guarding the house,, he,he,he maybe some surprise remodeling for the house while you're away. Maybe a new coat of paint even......... And it looks like ya need some more Kudzu vines, I'll plant a few hundred for Ya.

Hap start with the dictionary and revising words. Our schools have to read stories like my mom Frank.. that's not tolerance that's pushing the agenda.

I'd say the same goes for religious people as well.

Ever notice how Gay people impose their beliefs upon others, how they want to change the world to reflect their terminology. Tolerance isn't good enough we must change our way of life to fit their agenda.

Yeah the florists will love it. They can both toss bouquets........

And this little tidbit from Here This casual dismissal reveals her antipathy toward marriage as an institution central to human life for millennia. But then, what does the wisdom of the ages have to do with her task of updating The Canadian Oxford Dictionary? Ms. Barber is a thoroughly modern woman--and an advocate of the homosexual agenda. We know this because she chose to editorialize about the issue, explaining that the only reason anyone would object to her new gender-free definition of marriage is--you guessed it--"homophobia." Opponents of this new definition, she charged, "don't want to admit that gay people can have relationships that are just like their ideal heterosexual relationship." Clearly, Ms. Barber is not just concerned about words. She's out to change the world.

Speaking of altering a Dictionary in 2004 Here here Exactly what I said centuries of word meanings were discarded why because of a court decision, not because the word changed,because a court said so in this recent case four people said so.

If people teach us things that are true then they are truth., despite what they may do in their personal life . What teachers taught me is still true despite what moral flaws they may have had , some I may not even may have known about. It does not make what they said untrue. I don't know what lives my teachers lived, when someone writes a book and we learn from it , do we do a background check and if we did is it true based on the fact that it is? or on the writers moral life? Truth is Truth peoples flaws are peoples flaws they dont negate truth. That said yes their actions can make it dificult to accept their words, and lack of trust in those words can cause one to not accept them as truth even though they may be. And yes I agree with you. and truth should be something you can trust or people maybe even

And the state does rule in cases of divorce sometimes it is agreed upon sometimes it is far from that. I suppose if they have to break them up they feel they should have something to do with putting them together.

It has only changed in later years due to liberal pressure to appease the gay culture. It takes a villiage to raise a gay you know, for centuries before that it had no mention of gay marriage. Of course people can chage words that does not make it right. A gay person publishing a dictionary can print whatever they want just as some judges think they can.

It's clear that you don't want to answer the questions. It's clear that Jesus or his followers did not spend their days talking about personal evil day in day out , that's what is clear. It's clear that their warnings were to the point and then the focus was not continously on the sins of others but upon helping. Anyone can run their mouth about someone elses sins. that does not take much effort. If you want to stay stuck talking about others sins fine. Dont try to pass it off as something Jesus would do clearly he did not engage in such actions. Jesus helped those in need he did not set them down and tell them all of Herod's sins thinking that would somehow help them.