Last Christmas I worked for a gourmet gift basket company. I worked QC'g the quality of appearance of baskets from start to finish. I worked with a great group of people some homosexuals. I learned alot about these young ones....One young gal/guy (age 26) decided after her divorce from her homosexual marriage that she no longer wanted to be a lesbian and be the male instead. She had major surgerys to be totaly altered. She also was hospitilized 3x for running high fevers and Urological infections...in 3 months.
Very Very Sad!!
The fabric of america has effected the young in a different way...
I think this is a good example of reprobate..
I have more stories.I just cannot write about them..to disheartening..not glamourous.
I'm very sorry that you've been attacked for how you aproach the subject. Personally, I've found that any approach that isn't bigotry is attacked by the bigots.
Maybe this isn't a place that this can be discussed civilly, but I've found that hatred is not a biblical standard on this subject.
i would like to know how eyesopen was "attacked"...
i am really the only one who had a conversation with her about this topic... and although i disagreed with her, i fail to see how anything i said could be construed as a personal "attack"...
rhino's armchair assessment use of the word "attacked" was probably a poor choice of words...
i think he was probably using your terminology to respond in kind when he used the word...
because i have gone thru the whole exchange on that thread... and can find no evidence anywhere that he "attacked" you...
this is the way the verbal exchange went:
eyes: posts her opinion
jen-o: asks for reasons for eyes' disagreement with the plain understanding of the verses...
eyes: posts a very defensive response - which includes a sentence of jen-o's taken from a totally unrelated thread in an attempt to prove eyes' point that "jen-o was there"... eyes also posts her refusal to give reasons for her disagreement...
jen-o: responds and addresses eyes' refusal...
rhino: posts very short response stating he agrees with jen-o regarding eyes summarizing her views... he states: "it would be simple enough to briefly summarize why Eyes' would disagree with what seem to be obvious verses on the subject."
i fail to see how this can be construed as a personal "attack" by rhino... even though he erroneously used eyes' terminology "attack", this really does not constitute an "attack"...
rhino's post continues by addressing another person and other issues...
rhino: then makes 5 posts to people other than eyes........
eyes: responds to jen-o's last post... and includes insinuations that jen-o hasn't read the chapter from the beginning; jen-o hasn't read the context, jen-o hasn't done any research on this... (none of which were true)
eyes also brings up her book and states: "Really this is not rocket science...But there is much more that I have taken 40 pages in my book to clearly lay out the history and the time lines and I refuse to take up all of the space here to explain it all to you. If you don't want to read what I have already researched, if for nothing more than a different understanding then don't...I really dont care."
rhino: posts to someone else...
jen-o: posts to someone else...
jen-o: responds to eyes' last post regarding the insinuations and regarding the book... and states: "no, i don't want to buy a book in order to have a conversation on a message board."
rhino: posts to someone else...
rhino: posts that he has read about eye's book on amazon and on her website...
rhino: posts to someone else...
eyes: responds to jen-o's last post, insinuating this time that jen-o doesn't "remember the topic"... and makes a couple of insinuations about "waybrain"... eyes also responds to rhino's post with more talk about the book and websites... and questions whether rhino actually saw the book on amazon...
rhino: responds to eyes' post, giving an amazon blurb about the book... and also responding to eyes' defensive statement about believability... rhino states: "why wouldn't i believe you?"
eyes: responds to rhino... book is on amazon... that's cleared up...
rhino: makes 2 more posts to someone else...
jen-o: makes 3 posts to someone else...
jen-o: responds to eyes' last post and to the multiple insinuations included in it...
>>>end of verbal exchange<<<
eyes, perhaps you could point out where you were "attacked" in all of this...
because frankly, i don't see where you were "attacked" at all...
if anything, you were the one making subtle (or not so subtle) digs at me...
but i don't go around complaining about that sort of thing...
i deal with it directly... at the time it occurs... and address the person directly...
i also continue to post my perspective in spite of it... even though i think that a claim of being the injured party who has sustained an attack is partially a means to get someone with a viewpoint you don't like to shut up.... the claim of an "attack" also garners sympathy and support because people have a tendency to believe the claim of "attack" without investigating whether one has really occured or not...
I really hate to see the word "attacked" used in place of "hurtful communications" or "insensitive words". "attacked" means guns, knives and fists. Say what you mean and be exact and specific. English is a beautiful language for it's nuance, use it.
rhino's armchair assessment use of the word "attacked" was probably a poor choice of words...
i think he was probably using your terminology to respond in kind when he used the word...
because i have gone thru the whole exchange on that thread... and can find no evidence anywhere that he "attacked" you...
yes, I used the term because eyes had used it, I should have put it in quotes .. another chopped out of context quote ... ...
I was somewhat aggressive by suggesting she didn't write a very good paragraph on Amazon, yet claimed some secret authority, plus the authority of authorship on the subject. It seemed if she was trained, that info should be "paraded" on Amazon.
So I was sorta responding in kind as eyes had suggested authority and disagreed ... yet would not provide the authority. So I suggested the authority was invalid, based on what little eyes DID provide.
On the OT verse shared by eyes, jen-o points made much more sense to me, as well, and I have yet to see anything to change my mind on the biblical view.
But still, eyes book might be good for a gay kid that is looking for a way to tell his Christian mom he is gay.
Hey Mom, I got you a book on the Bible I'd like you to read ...
But the phrasing of this topic seems a little off .. I'd think maybe the homosexual act is biblically wrong ... as opposed to homosexuality. But I'm not a Bible person ... it just seems incongruous to me, to say it is fine with the Bible god.
Anyway, it was not a personal attack ... Eyes fired the first shot, sa i said .. she suggested the bible said homosexual acts were ok ... I just questioned her authority, since at that point the only authority was that she had written a book. It was all in the context of, "by what authority do you speak?" Eyes was not forthcoming, so I investigated, and reported ...
however, i still do not think that i said anything "hurtful" about eyes...
just because i disagree with her doesn't mean that i am "verbally attacking" her...
a disagreement is not a personal attack...
people should be allowed to express differences of opinion without it being labeled "hurtful communication"...
hi rhino!
didn't mean to put words in your mouth regarding the word "attacked"...
however, it just seemed to me that in the context of your post (especially in light of your use of the patrol boats and cruiser boats) that you were not using the word "attacked" the same way that eyes was... although you did use her terminology... it seemed like you were making a little analogy with the boats and the shots and the salvo and the bow... it sounded like that game called "battleship"...
peace to all,
jen-o
p.s. if someone claims some kind of authority and credentials regarding a topic, i'm not sure why it is such a problem to provide this information...
didn't mean to put words in your mouth regarding the word "attacked"...
however, it just seemed to me that in the context of your post (especially in light of your use of the patrol boats and cruiser boats) that you were not using the word "attacked" the same way that eyes was... although you did use her terminology... it seemed like you were making a little analogy with the boats and the shots and the salvo and the bow... it sounded like that game called "battleship"...
yeah, it was just a visual ... but if someone sails into troubled waters and fires some shots ... they can expect some attention.
I should add I work freelance on my patrol boat ... we have beer in one cooler and we fish ... I only carry a bb gun and bottle rockets ... oh, and one of those big sling shots to fire water balloons ...
Congratulations Eyes on your book. I haven't read it. I tried to click on the excerpt but my funky little puter wouldn't do it or perhaps it is my puter illiteracy. I am working on a book myself. I teach cooking and sewing classes. One of my students exclaimed, "You are a wealth of knowledge. You need to write a book." That set me on my adventure. It may come into fruition when my baby graduates highschool in 3 years. At 51, I am throws of highschool and all its activities and in love with every second of it. I intend to have a very large chapter about motherhood wisdom from the later years.
I think in all these post's cman said it best in post #33.
On another thought, some folks don't know how to treat others. It is amazing to me how folks claim to know the scripture and think they are so avant garde about sin. They point their finger at others, while pointing out scripture, yet they sin themselves because they are so unloving. They salivate at being contentious. Then there are those that don't know scripture but are ravenous about being contentious. Actually, the word is hateful. I have seen some hateful posts on here. But then again we live in the good ole USA and that is their right. Eyes I am not referring to you.
Regardless, of beliefs we are to love one another. Some folks need to love a little more. Then again maybe some folks need a little more love in their life.
And just for the record I hold one absolute truth that can not be disputed. Seed is seed. The seed you plant is what you get. You plant a kernel of corn you get corn. You plant a Kentucky Wonder greenbean seed you get greenbeans. My grandpa taught me that when I was 6 years old. I have never forgotten that.
And just for the record I hold one absolute truth that can not be disputed. Seed is seed. The seed you plant is what you get. You plant a kernel of corn you get corn. You plant a Kentucky Wonder greenbean seed you get greenbeans. My grandpa taught me that when I was 6 years old. I have never forgotten that.
Love to all
Does that mean, if you plant birdseed...you get birds? And then you become a "birdbrain"?
On another thought, some folks don't know how to treat others. It is amazing to me how folks claim to know the scripture and think they are so avant garde about sin. They point their finger at others, while pointing out scripture, yet they sin themselves because they are so unloving. They salivate at being contentious. Then there are those that don't know scripture but are ravenous about being contentious. Actually, the word is hateful. I have seen some hateful posts on here. But then again we live in the good ole USA and that is their right. Eyes I am not referring to you.
Regardless, of beliefs we are to love one another. Some folks need to love a little more. Then again maybe some folks need a little more love in their life.
hints and allegations ... maybe being more direct is in order at times. Eyes announced her book, which flies in the face of traditional Christianity. Fine.
She does so in a place where a lot of Christians hang out, but doesn't offer scripture. It is just an announcement to buy the book. Fine. But considering the crowd, a little odd, to not offer a shred of information as to how this conflicting conclusion was reached. That in itself seems somewhat contentious to me. But fine ... everyone offers praise.
But then in another thread discussing same sex marriage, eyes offers her opinion that homosexual acts are fine according to the Bible. CONTENTIOUS.
When pushed for details, mum is the word ... and yet there are hints that she has greater knowledge but she will not parade her credentials. She will not discuss her book. Not Fine. She mentions her professor ... but nothing else ... what kind of hit and run comment is that? Does she need to know how to treat people in threads better? Does she need to be less hateful?
What about going back to her thread here and making a "hateful" comment that some people just don't get her superior position, and so they are attacking her, before they hear her position? Is that love? The truth was we couldn't drag her elaboration out of her ... only hints of a professor and that she didn't need to parade her credentials. Yet she changed her story here, and actually did the "attacking" herself.
If you are going to tell someone their beliefs are wrong ... and pretend you have some authority to tell them that .. I think you are obligated to follow through rather than walk away. It would be mean otherwise. Or hateful otherwise. I responded there, to her hit and run "attack" ... which she then walked away from.
But then she brought it up here, how she was attacked for her belief. So here I am defending what I said there. She attacked other people's belief, but gave no reason except these credentials which she would not parade.
Kimberly, this line ... some people are hateful .. and not you eyes ... these not so subtle backhanded comments are worse than my directness, as I see it. I don't see hate of homosexuals, but a Biblical question.
Eyes "attacked" there and would not back up her comments. Then she comes here and says she was attacked for her belief, and in essence how closed minded those people are. Finally a verse or two were pried loose, and it seemed to reveal that eyes was just wrong. Eyes said in this thread
I actually would appreciate an honest scolarly discussion on the subject. But you may have noticed that the second I tell my opinion... I am attacked, long before I have a chance to elaborate (that is IF the thread is condusive to it). They claim to want to debate but they only attack and never read all that is written by myself or the Bible. I do not need to justify my findings to anyone nor do I need to "prove" my worthiness to actually study either. I seek to find the truth concerning many things, as do most people. I do not claim to have found the ALL TRUTH nor have I ever claimed such a thing. But I have been accused of that also.
It was eyes refusal to offer ANY reason for her belief that was the problem ... we waited and she said no ... she didn't need to parade her credentials. Later she offered an OT account, that I think jen-o plainly and (lovingly) rebutted. That was the end ... until eyes came her to say how she was attacked.
There may have been more where I made those other comments, but again, I can't see eyes making these claims of authority unless she has something to back it up. But rather than backing them up, she complains hateful people aren't buying her book, so they can understand her better. Good grief.
Now there is supposedly some "doctrinal" discussion. I haven't seen a thing there of substance. If people want to accept homosexuality, that is fine ... most people do, even Christians. But to try to redefine the Bible to fit in with the new belief is another thing. Why try to change someone else's foundation, just to make them fit in with what you believe?
Or is it really just about trying to find a small niche market ... homosexuals that would like some Biblical approval ... and selling them what they want?
And as wise as grandpa was.... maybe that needs to be expounded on ... too subtle for me. My Kentucky gay boy beans don't seem to reproduce very well ... which is fine .. but why talk about seed?
I for one am happy that in a country that claimes to 'fight' for the freedoms of all people and where in its foundational written documents it clearly states "all men are created equal" that a certain amount of freedom is finally being afforded to a group of people to whom it has been denied. Some would say that those people still had the 'freedom' to love whomever they wished and only denied the term 'marriage'. I would catagorically disagree with this assessment.
This country is the greatest country in the world of that I have no doubt. However many of the laws of this country can find their basis in the moral value system of the ruling order. Those moral values were formed by religion. And frankly I find some of their moral values just as repulsive as I find some of the Moslem moral values. On this issue of homosexuality I whole heartedly disagree with the biblical interpretation that says God hates homosexuality.
Just as most of us, while in TWI I spoke out against homosexuality and used those same tired verses to justify my narrowmindedness. Then a few years ago I was once again asked to show where it says in the Bible that homosexuality is a sin. I returned to those same verses...and we all fell flat. After much study and personal growth I have changed my views.
I dont know if God blesses Cali more or less or or just keeps score, but I for one give the Judges a kudos for doing their job despite public opposition. If the population of Cali wants to overturn the decision they are going to need to approach it legally, with a constitutional amendment. Until that happens I hope a million people get in there and get themselves married.
Here is the alleged contraversial post. I do not make this claim
eyes offers her opinion that homosexual acts are fine according to the Bible. CONTENTIOUS.
I simply say that I have changed my mind after rereading the verses and then studying them and then personal growth. Beyond that all of these other claims that I attacked anyone or was deliberately contentious or even mentioned my book at all...dont seem to be there. And yet I have also been accused of directly attacking in this post...where? I really dont see it nor did I intend to do so with
hints and allegations.
I simply gave my opinion as did many others and was more than willing to leave it at that.
Anyway Kimberly thank you for your kind words. Writing a book of any kind is very rewarding and in some ways difficult. But in the end it is all worth it. Let me know when your book comes out I would be interested in purchasing it.
eyes offers her opinion that homosexual acts are fine according to the Bible. CONTENTIOUS.
Here is the alleged contraversial post. I do not make this claim I simply say that I have changed my mind after rereading the verses and then studying them and then personal growth. Beyond that all of these other claims that I attacked anyone or was deliberately contentious or even mentioned my book at all...dont seem to be there. And yet I have also been accused of directly attacking in this post...where?
I said you fired the first shot ... in that you claimed the verses said something else about homosexual acts. Your book was brought up and you already had a thread about your book, so it is not like that was not known when your comments were made. Anyway .. then you wouldn't give reason why you felt what you did.
contentious just means given to controversy ... so I tried to find more about your secret verses. And I agreed with jen-o, you could have given some reason without rewriting your 40 pages on the subject ...
On a thread on that subject ... you made a contention that you would not back up, despite your 30 years of research. But then on this thread you "attacked" those whom you said never gave you a chance to respond.
perhaps you missed my post where i delineated the verbal exchange between you, rhino, and myself...
(maybe you should check out that post... post #60)
there was more to our exchange than the one post you reference here... or are you being deliberately misleading?
of course, you did mention your book during that exchange... as well as making multiple insinuations about me!... just because those things aren't in this first post (you reference here) doesn't mean that you didn't say them at all...
are you deliberately ignoring the rest of the posts you made on that thread in order to set up a straw man argument that "mean" jen-o and rhino are "attacking" you over this first post that you made?!?... that is very deceptive!!
eyes, you've made a lot of backhanded comments to me!... why do you have such a hard time addressing the issues directly??
On another thought, some folks don't know how to treat others. It is amazing to me how folks claim to know the scripture and think they are so avant garde about sin. They point their finger at others, while pointing out scripture, yet they sin themselves because they are so unloving. They salivate at being contentious. Then there are those that don't know scripture but are ravenous about being contentious. Actually, the word is hateful. I have seen some hateful posts on here. But then again we live in the good ole USA and that is their right. Eyes I am not referring to you. Some folks need to love a little more. Then again maybe some folks need a little more love in their life.
wow, kimberly... you got enough fingers on that hand?
you are doing an awful lot of pointing!
especially for someone who is complaining about "finger pointing"...
just exactly who is this elusive "they"??
perhaps you could be a little more specific?
or do you just want to make backhanded comments?
correct me if i'm wrong, but i think you claim to be a christian...
and yet, you think nothing of coming here and dumping a load of #### on the elusive "they"...
while criticizing and condemning "folks" in a very judgemental way...
you do the very thing that you accuse others of doing!
still, i'd be curious to know just exactly who are these "hateful" folks with their "hateful" posts...
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
13
9
30
7
Popular Days
Jun 11
15
Jun 6
11
Mar 26
8
Jun 4
8
Top Posters In This Topic
jen-o 13 posts
rhino 9 posts
Eyesopen 30 posts
Bumpy 7 posts
Popular Days
Jun 11 2008
15 posts
Jun 6 2008
11 posts
Mar 26 2008
8 posts
Jun 4 2008
8 posts
likeaneagle
doesnt a reprobate mind fit in here.
If not, someone please explain.
Edited by likeaneagleLink to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
don't know
love,
reprobate
--
dedicated to my gay friends
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtVZdvoGIR0
Link to comment
Share on other sites
likeaneagle
This may sound extreme, but!
Last Christmas I worked for a gourmet gift basket company. I worked QC'g the quality of appearance of baskets from start to finish. I worked with a great group of people some homosexuals. I learned alot about these young ones....One young gal/guy (age 26) decided after her divorce from her homosexual marriage that she no longer wanted to be a lesbian and be the male instead. She had major surgerys to be totaly altered. She also was hospitilized 3x for running high fevers and Urological infections...in 3 months.
Very Very Sad!!
The fabric of america has effected the young in a different way...
I think this is a good example of reprobate..
I have more stories.I just cannot write about them..to disheartening..not glamourous.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shellon
Thank you excath
Link to comment
Share on other sites
likeaneagle
Sorry, just realized I posted in wrong forum..
Topic says not up for discussion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
JeffSjo
Hi Eyesopen,
I'm very sorry that you've been attacked for how you aproach the subject. Personally, I've found that any approach that isn't bigotry is attacked by the bigots.
Maybe this isn't a place that this can be discussed civilly, but I've found that hatred is not a biblical standard on this subject.
God Bless
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
hi jeff,
i would like to know how eyesopen was "attacked"...
i am really the only one who had a conversation with her about this topic... and although i disagreed with her, i fail to see how anything i said could be construed as a personal "attack"...
peace,
jen-o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
hi eyes,
rhino's armchair assessment use of the word "attacked" was probably a poor choice of words...
i think he was probably using your terminology to respond in kind when he used the word...
because i have gone thru the whole exchange on that thread... and can find no evidence anywhere that he "attacked" you...
this is the way the verbal exchange went:
eyes: posts her opinion
jen-o: asks for reasons for eyes' disagreement with the plain understanding of the verses...
eyes: posts a very defensive response - which includes a sentence of jen-o's taken from a totally unrelated thread in an attempt to prove eyes' point that "jen-o was there"... eyes also posts her refusal to give reasons for her disagreement...
jen-o: responds and addresses eyes' refusal...
rhino: posts very short response stating he agrees with jen-o regarding eyes summarizing her views... he states: "it would be simple enough to briefly summarize why Eyes' would disagree with what seem to be obvious verses on the subject."
i fail to see how this can be construed as a personal "attack" by rhino... even though he erroneously used eyes' terminology "attack", this really does not constitute an "attack"...
rhino's post continues by addressing another person and other issues...
rhino: then makes 5 posts to people other than eyes........
eyes: responds to jen-o's last post... and includes insinuations that jen-o hasn't read the chapter from the beginning; jen-o hasn't read the context, jen-o hasn't done any research on this... (none of which were true)
eyes also brings up her book and states: "Really this is not rocket science...But there is much more that I have taken 40 pages in my book to clearly lay out the history and the time lines and I refuse to take up all of the space here to explain it all to you. If you don't want to read what I have already researched, if for nothing more than a different understanding then don't...I really dont care."
rhino: posts to someone else...
jen-o: posts to someone else...
jen-o: responds to eyes' last post regarding the insinuations and regarding the book... and states: "no, i don't want to buy a book in order to have a conversation on a message board."
rhino: posts to someone else...
rhino: posts that he has read about eye's book on amazon and on her website...
rhino: posts to someone else...
eyes: responds to jen-o's last post, insinuating this time that jen-o doesn't "remember the topic"... and makes a couple of insinuations about "waybrain"... eyes also responds to rhino's post with more talk about the book and websites... and questions whether rhino actually saw the book on amazon...
rhino: responds to eyes' post, giving an amazon blurb about the book... and also responding to eyes' defensive statement about believability... rhino states: "why wouldn't i believe you?"
eyes: responds to rhino... book is on amazon... that's cleared up...
rhino: makes 2 more posts to someone else...
jen-o: makes 3 posts to someone else...
jen-o: responds to eyes' last post and to the multiple insinuations included in it...
>>>end of verbal exchange<<<
eyes, perhaps you could point out where you were "attacked" in all of this...
because frankly, i don't see where you were "attacked" at all...
if anything, you were the one making subtle (or not so subtle) digs at me...
but i don't go around complaining about that sort of thing...
i deal with it directly... at the time it occurs... and address the person directly...
i also continue to post my perspective in spite of it... even though i think that a claim of being the injured party who has sustained an attack is partially a means to get someone with a viewpoint you don't like to shut up.... the claim of an "attack" also garners sympathy and support because people have a tendency to believe the claim of "attack" without investigating whether one has really occured or not...
and that is the reason for this post...
peace,
jen-o
Edited by jen-oLink to comment
Share on other sites
Jim
I really hate to see the word "attacked" used in place of "hurtful communications" or "insensitive words". "attacked" means guns, knives and fists. Say what you mean and be exact and specific. English is a beautiful language for it's nuance, use it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
yes, I used the term because eyes had used it, I should have put it in quotes .. another chopped out of context quote ...
...
I was somewhat aggressive by suggesting she didn't write a very good paragraph on Amazon, yet claimed some secret authority, plus the authority of authorship on the subject. It seemed if she was trained, that info should be "paraded" on Amazon.
So I was sorta responding in kind as eyes had suggested authority and disagreed ... yet would not provide the authority. So I suggested the authority was invalid, based on what little eyes DID provide.
On the OT verse shared by eyes, jen-o points made much more sense to me, as well, and I have yet to see anything to change my mind on the biblical view.
But still, eyes book might be good for a gay kid that is looking for a way to tell his Christian mom he is gay.
But the phrasing of this topic seems a little off .. I'd think maybe the homosexual act is biblically wrong ... as opposed to homosexuality. But I'm not a Bible person ... it just seems incongruous to me, to say it is fine with the Bible god.
Anyway, it was not a personal attack ... Eyes fired the first shot, sa i said .. she suggested the bible said homosexual acts were ok ... I just questioned her authority, since at that point the only authority was that she had written a book. It was all in the context of, "by what authority do you speak?" Eyes was not forthcoming, so I investigated, and reported ...
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I've stayed away from this because I haven't read the book.
Sorry, Eyes, I just can't read a lot like I did when I was younger and my eyeballs didn't tire so quickly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
hi jim,
i understand what you mean...
however, i still do not think that i said anything "hurtful" about eyes...
just because i disagree with her doesn't mean that i am "verbally attacking" her...
a disagreement is not a personal attack...
people should be allowed to express differences of opinion without it being labeled "hurtful communication"...
hi rhino!
didn't mean to put words in your mouth regarding the word "attacked"...
however, it just seemed to me that in the context of your post (especially in light of your use of the patrol boats and cruiser boats) that you were not using the word "attacked" the same way that eyes was... although you did use her terminology... it seemed like you were making a little analogy with the boats and the shots and the salvo and the bow... it sounded like that game called "battleship"...
peace to all,
jen-o
p.s. if someone claims some kind of authority and credentials regarding a topic, i'm not sure why it is such a problem to provide this information...
Edited by jen-oLink to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
yeah, it was just a visual ... but if someone sails into troubled waters and fires some shots ... they can expect some attention.
I should add I work freelance on my patrol boat ... we have beer in one cooler and we fish ... I only carry a bb gun and bottle rockets ... oh, and one of those big sling shots to fire water balloons ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jim
I never meant my post to imply you did those things. I was just commenting on the fast-and-loose use of the word "attacked".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
hey jim!
i never meant for my post to imply that you were implying anything... heehee
hey rhino!
now your analogy makes even more sense! :D
we all use analogies from our own personal backgrounds...
peace to all,
jen-o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kimberly
Congratulations Eyes on your book. I haven't read it. I tried to click on the excerpt but my funky little puter wouldn't do it or perhaps it is my puter illiteracy. I am working on a book myself. I teach cooking and sewing classes. One of my students exclaimed, "You are a wealth of knowledge. You need to write a book." That set me on my adventure. It may come into fruition when my baby graduates highschool in 3 years. At 51, I am throws of highschool and all its activities and in love with every second of it. I intend to have a very large chapter about motherhood wisdom from the later years.
I think in all these post's cman said it best in post #33.
On another thought, some folks don't know how to treat others. It is amazing to me how folks claim to know the scripture and think they are so avant garde about sin. They point their finger at others, while pointing out scripture, yet they sin themselves because they are so unloving. They salivate at being contentious. Then there are those that don't know scripture but are ravenous about being contentious. Actually, the word is hateful. I have seen some hateful posts on here. But then again we live in the good ole USA and that is their right. Eyes I am not referring to you.
Regardless, of beliefs we are to love one another. Some folks need to love a little more. Then again maybe some folks need a little more love in their life.
And just for the record I hold one absolute truth that can not be disputed. Seed is seed. The seed you plant is what you get. You plant a kernel of corn you get corn. You plant a Kentucky Wonder greenbean seed you get greenbeans. My grandpa taught me that when I was 6 years old. I have never forgotten that.
Love to all
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
peace,
jen-o
p.s. hey look!... i've graduated to wondering about the toast... LOL
Edited by jen-oLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bumpy
Does that mean, if you plant birdseed...you get birds? And then you become a "birdbrain"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
hints and allegations ... maybe being more direct is in order at times. Eyes announced her book, which flies in the face of traditional Christianity. Fine.
She does so in a place where a lot of Christians hang out, but doesn't offer scripture. It is just an announcement to buy the book. Fine. But considering the crowd, a little odd, to not offer a shred of information as to how this conflicting conclusion was reached. That in itself seems somewhat contentious to me. But fine ... everyone offers praise.
But then in another thread discussing same sex marriage, eyes offers her opinion that homosexual acts are fine according to the Bible. CONTENTIOUS.
When pushed for details, mum is the word ... and yet there are hints that she has greater knowledge but she will not parade her credentials. She will not discuss her book. Not Fine. She mentions her professor ... but nothing else ... what kind of hit and run comment is that? Does she need to know how to treat people in threads better? Does she need to be less hateful?
What about going back to her thread here and making a "hateful" comment that some people just don't get her superior position, and so they are attacking her, before they hear her position? Is that love? The truth was we couldn't drag her elaboration out of her ... only hints of a professor and that she didn't need to parade her credentials. Yet she changed her story here, and actually did the "attacking" herself.
If you are going to tell someone their beliefs are wrong ... and pretend you have some authority to tell them that .. I think you are obligated to follow through rather than walk away. It would be mean otherwise. Or hateful otherwise. I responded there, to her hit and run "attack" ... which she then walked away from.
But then she brought it up here, how she was attacked for her belief. So here I am defending what I said there. She attacked other people's belief, but gave no reason except these credentials which she would not parade.
Kimberly, this line ... some people are hateful .. and not you eyes ... these not so subtle backhanded comments are worse than my directness, as I see it. I don't see hate of homosexuals, but a Biblical question.
Eyes "attacked" there and would not back up her comments. Then she comes here and says she was attacked for her belief, and in essence how closed minded those people are. Finally a verse or two were pried loose, and it seemed to reveal that eyes was just wrong. Eyes said in this thread
It was eyes refusal to offer ANY reason for her belief that was the problem ... we waited and she said no ... she didn't need to parade her credentials. Later she offered an OT account, that I think jen-o plainly and (lovingly) rebutted. That was the end ... until eyes came her to say how she was attacked.
There may have been more where I made those other comments, but again, I can't see eyes making these claims of authority unless she has something to back it up. But rather than backing them up, she complains hateful people aren't buying her book, so they can understand her better. Good grief.
Now there is supposedly some "doctrinal" discussion. I haven't seen a thing there of substance. If people want to accept homosexuality, that is fine ... most people do, even Christians. But to try to redefine the Bible to fit in with the new belief is another thing. Why try to change someone else's foundation, just to make them fit in with what you believe?
Or is it really just about trying to find a small niche market ... homosexuals that would like some Biblical approval ... and selling them what they want?
And as wise as grandpa was.... maybe that needs to be expounded on ... too subtle for me. My Kentucky gay boy beans don't seem to reproduce very well ... which is fine .. but why talk about seed?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
Anyway Kimberly thank you for your kind words. Writing a book of any kind is very rewarding and in some ways difficult. But in the end it is all worth it. Let me know when your book comes out I would be interested in purchasing it.
Edited by EyesopenLink to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
I said you fired the first shot ... in that you claimed the verses said something else about homosexual acts. Your book was brought up and you already had a thread about your book, so it is not like that was not known when your comments were made. Anyway .. then you wouldn't give reason why you felt what you did.
contentious just means given to controversy ... so I tried to find more about your secret verses. And I agreed with jen-o, you could have given some reason without rewriting your 40 pages on the subject ...
On a thread on that subject ... you made a contention that you would not back up, despite your 30 years of research. But then on this thread you "attacked" those whom you said never gave you a chance to respond.
That's all ... no big deal ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
eyes,
perhaps you missed my post where i delineated the verbal exchange between you, rhino, and myself...
(maybe you should check out that post... post #60)
there was more to our exchange than the one post you reference here... or are you being deliberately misleading?
of course, you did mention your book during that exchange... as well as making multiple insinuations about me!... just because those things aren't in this first post (you reference here) doesn't mean that you didn't say them at all...
are you deliberately ignoring the rest of the posts you made on that thread in order to set up a straw man argument that "mean" jen-o and rhino are "attacking" you over this first post that you made?!?... that is very deceptive!!
eyes, you've made a lot of backhanded comments to me!... why do you have such a hard time addressing the issues directly??
peace,
jen-o
Edited by jen-oLink to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
you are doing an awful lot of pointing!
especially for someone who is complaining about "finger pointing"...
just exactly who is this elusive "they"??
perhaps you could be a little more specific?
or do you just want to make backhanded comments?
correct me if i'm wrong, but i think you claim to be a christian...
and yet, you think nothing of coming here and dumping a load of #### on the elusive "they"...
while criticizing and condemning "folks" in a very judgemental way...
you do the very thing that you accuse others of doing!
still, i'd be curious to know just exactly who are these "hateful" folks with their "hateful" posts...
would you care to enlighten me?
peace,
jen-o
p.s. here is how your paragraph reads:
some folks don't...
folks claim...
they are...
they point...
they sin...
they are unloving...
they salivate...
they are contentious...
those don't...
those are ravenous...
those are hateful...
they need to...
some folks need...
it's really quite the paragraph!
Edited by jen-oLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.