|
Post by emy on Aug 14, 2015 11:57:42 GMT -5
Yeah me too, I've searched and i always end up the same meaning "bitter" except for a couple of exceptions which of course i use, like beloved, and I've searched everywhere for a different meaning whenever i look up the meaning of our names with any of my family they think it's so funny that mine means bitter. When their's have lovely meanings! My son in law thought it was hysterical one day. So we looked up his which didn't help because his mean't gift of God. Which he quickly changed to Gods gift! I told him to dream on! Interesting discussion of the name, Mary, at this site: www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Mary.html#.Vc4biPmA--c The verb מרר (marar I), means to be bitter (Job 27:2, Ruth 1:20). It should be noted with some stress, however, that for the Hebrew audience the idea of bitterness has as much to do with grief as with strength. A dish with a bitter taste is said to have a "strong" taste.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 14, 2015 11:58:09 GMT -5
I told you -- they accept the authority of the state. Also, because they are "people of the book". It's hard to believe that the Egyptian Christians beheaded on a Libyan beach were shown any mercy as "people of the book" - or that they had much of a choice about their future. Yeah, those gods told their followers to do some pretty horrific things. I guess the difference is that some follow the word to the letter and others decide to use their brains. 1 Samuel 15:3 NIV "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys."
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 14, 2015 15:08:36 GMT -5
There shouldn't be abused persons. That wasn't the question. The question was supposed to be: So you expect an abused person to stay? ?? What difference does it make what should be and what shouldn't be --- reality is that there are people who are abused -- physically if one doesn't understand emotionally. Think of the worst scenario -- any reason at all that they should leave? We've been speaking past each other. If people are not happy with F&W's doctrine, then they can find a church that fits better with their beliefs and we can part friends. There's no need for us to change doctrine to suit the disaffected, or wring our hands over folks who join a church that ordains openly gay ministers and baptizes infants and dresses it's clergy in frocks. However, if people leave because they've been abused then that's something to be concerned about. F&W's need to empathise with the abused and deal with the root causes of the abuse.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 14, 2015 15:33:08 GMT -5
F&W's need to empathise with the abused and deal with the root causes of the abuse. How do you think the F&W can deal with criminal behavior or mental illness?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 14, 2015 16:02:22 GMT -5
That's good. Doctrinal issues should be the no. 1 reason why people leave. Horses for courses. Agreed - although it's hard for some to work out what the doctrine is that they are leaving. In my experience some.Workers had completely different positions on core issues. Have you worked out the doctrine of the Anglican Communion that you're a part of? It seems to me that Anglican leaders have completely different positions on core issues e.g. 1. Blessing of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender marriage. 2. The ordination of openly gay ministers. 3. The ordination of women. 4. Transubstantiation, Eucharistic adoration, or pneumatic presence. 5. Baptising the infants of same-sex couples. There seems to be plenty of opportunity for you to straighten out Anglican leadership and get them all singing from the same song sheet Ross.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 14, 2015 16:03:21 GMT -5
A man was about to commit suicide by jumping from a high bridge, when a second man ran up to him shouting, "Stop! Stop! Don't do it!"...
"But I have nothing to live for," said the first man.
"Maybe I can help you," said the second man. "Are you religious?"
"Yes, I am," said the first man.
"Me too!" said the second man. "Are you Christian, Jewish, or Muslim?"
"I'm Christian," said the first man.
"Me too!" said the second man. "Are you Catholic, Calvinist or Wesleyan?"
"Calvinist," said the first man.
"Me too!" said the second man. "Are you liberal or conservative?"
"Conservative," said the first man.
"Me too!" said the second man. "Evangelical or Fundamentalist?"
"Evangelical," said the first man.
"Me too!" said the second man. "Charismatic, Reformed, or Baptist?"
"Baptist," said the first man.
"Me too!" said the second man. "General Baptist, Conference Baptist, or Northern Baptist?"
"Conference Baptist," said the first man.
"Me too!" said the second man excitedly. "Conference Baptist of the 1932 Conference, or Conference Baptist of the 1946 Conference?"
"Conference Baptist of the 1932 Conference!" said the first man.
"1932? Then die, infidel heretic scum!" And the second man pushed the first man off the bridge.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Aug 14, 2015 16:16:53 GMT -5
I told you -- they accept the authority of the state. Also, because they are "people of the book". It's hard to believe that the Egyptian Christians beheaded on a Libyan beach were shown any mercy as "people of the book" - or that they had much of a choice about their future. You don't happen to think I disagree with you, do you?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Aug 14, 2015 16:19:09 GMT -5
Just a little fun review. Timothy appointed bishops at Ephesus ..... and whose role is it to appoint Bishops? Yeah but our friend Ross isn't having fun in claiming Timothy was Bishop of Ephesus! I thought you must have put on his 'anglican evangelical' glasses, read the Bible and come up with something even more preposterous! I Timothy 3 Titus 1 In the list of abusive styles, that one's called the PUT-DOWN ARTIST.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Aug 14, 2015 16:23:18 GMT -5
It's hard to believe that the Egyptian Christians beheaded on a Libyan beach were shown any mercy as "people of the book" - or that they had much of a choice about their future. Yeah, those gods told their followers to do some pretty horrific things. I guess the difference is that some follow the word to the letter and others decide to use their brains. 1 Samuel 15:3 NIV "Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys." Oh, the poor donkeys. I love donkeys. They come to me every time I call them.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Aug 14, 2015 16:27:17 GMT -5
That wasn't the question. The question was supposed to be: So you expect an abused person to stay? ?? What difference does it make what should be and what shouldn't be --- reality is that there are people who are abused -- physically if one doesn't understand emotionally. Think of the worst scenario -- any reason at all that they should leave? We've been speaking past each other. If people are not happy with F&W's doctrine, then they can find a church that fits better with their beliefs and we can part friends. There's no need for us to change doctrine to suit the disaffected, or wring our hands over folks who join a church that ordains openly gay ministers and baptizes infants and dresses it's clergy in frocks. However, if people leave because they've been abused then that's something to be concerned about. F&W's need to empathise with the abused and deal with the root causes of the abuse. We're not speaking past each other -- you're not answering my question. Let me ask it this way. Is abuse an acceptable reason to leave the 2x2s? The question calls for a yes or no answer. Then if you want to explain the answer, you can't use the word "but".
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Aug 14, 2015 16:31:33 GMT -5
A man was about to commit suicide by jumping from a high bridge, when a second man ran up to him shouting, "Stop! Stop! Don't do it!"... "But I have nothing to live for," said the first man. "Maybe I can help you," said the second man. "Are you religious?" "Yes, I am," said the first man. "Me too!" said the second man. "Are you Christian, Jewish, or Muslim?" "I'm Christian," said the first man. "Me too!" said the second man. "Are you Catholic, Calvinist or Wesleyan?" "Calvinist," said the first man. "Me too!" said the second man. "Are you liberal or conservative?" "Conservative," said the first man. "Me too!" said the second man. "Evangelical or Fundamentalist?" "Evangelical," said the first man. "Me too!" said the second man. "Charismatic, Reformed, or Baptist?" "Baptist," said the first man. "Me too!" said the second man. "General Baptist, Conference Baptist, or Northern Baptist?" "Conference Baptist," said the first man. "Me too!" said the second man excitedly. "Conference Baptist of the 1932 Conference, or Conference Baptist of the 1946 Conference?" "Conference Baptist of the 1932 Conference!" said the first man. "1932? Then die, infidel heretic scum!" And the second man pushed the first man off the bridge. 2x2s wouldn't have to ask all those questions. The only one they have to ask is: "Are you a friend of George Walker?"
|
|
|
Post by snow on Aug 14, 2015 16:36:38 GMT -5
Agreed - although it's hard for some to work out what the doctrine is that they are leaving. In my experience some.Workers had completely different positions on core issues. Have you worked out the doctrine of the Anglican Communion that you're a part of? It seems to me that Anglican leaders have completely different positions on core issues e.g. 1. Blessing of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender marriage. 2. The ordination of openly gay ministers. 3. The ordination of women. 4. Transubstantiation, Eucharistic adoration, or pneumatic presence. 5. Baptising the infants of same-sex couples. There seems to be plenty of opportunity for you to straighten out Anglican leadership and get them all singing from the same song sheet Ross. Are those things wrong? Sounds like they are at least getting some things right, 1.2.3.5. I, of course, don't agree that any of that is necessary, but if you have to believe in a religion, I guess it's at least steps in the right direction.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 14, 2015 16:38:15 GMT -5
We've been speaking past each other. If people are not happy with F&W's doctrine, then they can find a church that fits better with their beliefs and we can part friends. There's no need for us to change doctrine to suit the disaffected, or wring our hands over folks who join a church that ordains openly gay ministers and baptizes infants and dresses it's clergy in frocks. However, if people leave because they've been abused then that's something to be concerned about. F&W's need to empathise with the abused and deal with the root causes of the abuse. We're not speaking past each other -- you're not answering my question. Let me ask it this way. Is abuse an acceptable reason to leave the 2x2s? The question calls for a yes or no answer. Then if you want to explain the answer, you can't use the word "but". Yes. But, many folks can cope with a bit of abuse and may choose to stay.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Aug 14, 2015 17:42:03 GMT -5
Re the TLT I am reminded of what Jesus said about apostates: "When the unclean spirit goes out of a man, it passes through waterless places seeking rest, and not finding any, it says, 'I will return to my house from which I came.' And when it comes, it finds it swept and put in order. "Then it goes and takes along seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they go in and live there; and the last state of that man becomes worse than the first."
And then you see people behaving in a way they never did, or would dream of doing, before. That is pretty sobering. We know there are things that haven't been and still aren't what they ought to be. It's interesting that Matisse can see and say "There are some great people in the 2x2's, and some great things about being part of the 2x2's." But positive observations like Matisse's are rarely found on exe sites like TLT. I wonder why people like ilylo find themselves practically incapable of acknowledging anything good and right. Why is that? Interesting, Ilylo refers to arrogance on the home page of TLT. An aunt of mine who was introduced to the 2x2's when she married my B&R but unprofessing uncle, observed, 'The people I have encountered have an odd mix of naivite and arrogance.' I mention this to illustrate that not everyone who looks at the group from the outside sees it in a positive light. In my aunt's case, she had never visited TLT, or any of the other so-called "activist exe" sites, yet her take on the group was in line with Ilylo. I have fond memories of Convention, big get-togethers with softball games, a huge network of extended family and friends... I don't miss what I have come to see as a culture that supports secrecy and deceit, with high level leaders who seem unwilling to call it out. I don't miss believing that I was among God's only true people on earth. To speak to your question, if someone truly believes that a group is built on lies and that the people in it are in danger, why would they say anything positive? Think about the thread you started about Planned Parenthood. I don't think you have said one positive thing about the organization. Why is that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2015 20:31:42 GMT -5
Have you worked out the doctrine of the Anglican Communion that you're a part of? It seems to me that Anglican leaders have completely different positions on core issues e.g. 1. Blessing of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender marriage. 2. The ordination of openly gay ministers. 3. The ordination of women. 4. Transubstantiation, Eucharistic adoration, or pneumatic presence. 5. Baptising the infants of same-sex couples. There seems to be plenty of opportunity for you to straighten out Anglican leadership and get them all singing from the same song sheet Ross. You obviously have lno knowledge of the Anglican communion and how it works and is structured. Important to get out and do some real-life research like Doug Parker and Cherie Kropp and others have done than just trying to work it out from a computer. ah but I noticed you didn't answer the other 4 points fixit made you wouldn't be in a 2x2 denial phase would ya?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2015 20:55:01 GMT -5
ah but I noticed you didn't answer the other 4 points fixit made you wouldn't be in a 2x2 denial phase would ya? Not sure by what you mean by 4 other points? The things that fixit raised - apart from ordination of woman - are so far removed from the Sydney Anglican Church that I've never thought about them in that context! Re ordination of woman, woman are ordained but do not lead a church - similar position to 2x2's. Why would I be in 2x2 denial. It exists as an organised church and I know plenty of workers and friends and have a fair amount to do with them? What am I in denial about? Anglicans all around the world are moving in the direction of same sex marriage and such things the Sydney Anglican church won't be far behind...perth Anglican church recently voted 2-1 vote for same sex marriage
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2015 21:59:41 GMT -5
Wot I find amusing is that a generation or two ago most churches denied they would EVER support "same sex marriage." The main charge against the liberals in the Uniting Church of Australia in the mid 1970's was their support for gay priests and gay marriage. This was hotly denied.
It is clear the mainstrea churches are not being led by Christ but by public opinion. And public opinion thinks its time churches should go away.
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Aug 14, 2015 22:09:49 GMT -5
That's good. Doctrinal issues should be the no. 1 reason why people leave. Horses for courses. Agreed - although it's hard for some to work out what the doctrine is that they are leaving. In my experience some.Workers had completely different positions on core issues. How true Ross, look at the difference between states & countries on issues like D&R, marrying outsiders, BREAD & WINE at Convention ! And our resident worker cannot even tell us why !
|
|
|
Post by Roselyn T on Aug 14, 2015 22:13:06 GMT -5
Wot I find amusing is that a generation or two ago most churches denied they would EVER support "same sex marriage." The main charge against the liberals in the Uniting Church of Australia in the mid 1970's was their support for gay priests and gay marriage. This was hotly denied.
It is clear the mainstrea churches are not being led by Christ but by public opinion. And public opinion thinks its time churches should go away. Would that be the same public opinion that is used in the F&W, that causes the differences between states on issues like D&R bert !
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 14, 2015 22:38:12 GMT -5
That's good. Doctrinal issues should be the no. 1 reason why people leave. Horses for courses. Agreed - although it's hard for some to work out what the doctrine is that they are leaving. In my experience some.Workers had completely different positions on core issues. Ross, you condemn F&W for inconsistencies in doctrine yet you won't acknowledge the inconsistencies (and unbiblical doctrine) in the Anglican Communion. What is biblical about the following? 1. Blessing of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender marriage. 2. The ordination of openly gay ministers. 3. The ordination of women bishops. 4. Transubstantiation, Eucharistic adoration, or pneumatic presence. 5. Baptising the infants of same-sex couples.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Aug 14, 2015 22:40:45 GMT -5
Wot I find amusing is that a generation or two ago most churches denied they would EVER support "same sex marriage." The main charge against the liberals in the Uniting Church of Australia in the mid 1970's was their support for gay priests and gay marriage. This was hotly denied.
It is clear the mainstrea churches are not being led by Christ but by public opinion. And public opinion thinks its time churches should go away. Be careful where you are going here Bert - there have been many homosexual workers - some lasted a good distance others pulled out after, maybe 5 or so years. I have heard mention of lesbian workers but nothing definite. It much easier for women to disguise their predisposition as behaviour we would frown upon in men is quite acceptable or even expected in women.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 14, 2015 23:23:10 GMT -5
5. Baptising the infants of same-sex couples. Such an infant would be a miracle in and of itself. Any church should take such an infant for their own. Look what the last miracle birth did for the christians.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 15, 2015 0:36:53 GMT -5
Ross, you condemn F&W for inconsistencies in doctrine yet you won't acknowledge the inconsistencies (and unbiblical doctrine) in the Anglican Communion. What is biblical about the following? 1. Blessing of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender marriage. 2. The ordination of openly gay ministers. 3. The ordination of women bishops. 4. Transubstantiation, Eucharistic adoration, or pneumatic presence. 5. Baptising the infants of same-sex couples. Of course, I am against those things in not only the broader Anglican communion but in any Christian church. If they occurred in the Sydney church I would condemn them. They aren't so I don't have to do anything on them. If you're not willing to condemn unscriptural beliefs and practises in the Anglican Communion, why would you condemn anything in the 2x2 church that you left a long time ago?
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 15, 2015 0:49:25 GMT -5
5. Baptising the infants of same-sex couples. Such an infant would be a miracle in and of itself. Any church should take such an infant for their own. Look what the last miracle birth did for the christians. Women seem able to make babies even when they're in same-sex relationships.
|
|
|
Post by jondough on Aug 15, 2015 2:40:46 GMT -5
Of course, I am against those things in not only the broader Anglican communion but in any Christian church. If they occurred in the Sydney church I would condemn them. They aren't so I don't have to do anything on them. If you're not willing to condemn unscriptural beliefs and practises in the Anglican Communion, why would you condemn anything in the 2x2 church that you left a long time ago? Fixit, I think you read his post wrong
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 15, 2015 2:54:59 GMT -5
If you're not willing to condemn unscriptural beliefs and practises in the Anglican Communion, why would you condemn anything in the 2x2 church that you left a long time ago? Fixit, I think you read his post wrong Ross seems able to condemn F&W worldwide for wrong doctrine or inconsistency. Why not the Anglican community?
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Aug 15, 2015 2:58:01 GMT -5
A bit like some workers accepting divorce and remarriage while others ban them from taking part and/or the emblems. Depending on who, what, when and where.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse_Lackman on Aug 15, 2015 8:13:11 GMT -5
That is pretty sobering. We know there are things that haven't been and still aren't what they ought to be. It's interesting that Matisse can see and say "There are some great people in the 2x2's, and some great things about being part of the 2x2's." But positive observations like Matisse's are rarely found on exe sites like TLT. I wonder why people like ilylo find themselves practically incapable of acknowledging anything good and right. Why is that? Interesting, Ilylo refers to arrogance on the home page of TLT. An aunt of mine who was introduced to the 2x2's when she married my B&R but unprofessing uncle, observed, 'The people I have encountered have an odd mix of naivite and arrogance.' I mention this to illustrate that not everyone who looks at the group from the outside sees it in a positive light. In my aunt's case, she had never visited TLT, or any of the other so-called "activist exe" sites, yet her take on the group was in line with Ilylo. I have fond memories of Convention, big get-togethers with softball games, a huge network of extended family and friends... I don't miss what I have come to see as a culture that supports secrecy and deceit, with high level leaders who seem unwilling to call it out. I don't miss believing that I was among God's only true people on earth. To speak to your question, if someone truly believes that a group is built on lies and that the people in it are in danger, why would they say anything positive? Think about the thread you started about Planned Parenthood. I don't think you have said one positive thing about the organization. Why is that? Very interesting question. I really haden't considered Planned Parenthood until the investigative videos came out. And the more I look the worse it gets, for instance check out this site; blackgenocide.org/planned.htmlThen there is Margret Sanger who is like Planned Parenthood's William Irvine but in a much darker and evil way. Her ideas are interesting reading to say the least. From the link above; What does Planned Parenthood offer that isn't available elsewhere in the healthcare industry? I suppose any further discussion about Planned Parenthood belongs on the thread you referred to; professing.proboards.com/thread/23194/selling-aborted-baby-parts-video
|
|