Openly Curious Posted May 22, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 55 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 4,568 Content Per Day: 0.68 Reputation: 770 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/18/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted May 22, 2007 OC:Ruling and having authority over the animals of the earth is not abuse firehill it is a responsibility to care for them else they would run amuck on the face of the earth the cows have to be milked everyday and so forth it is a place of responsiblity. Good points. We are to care for them and they are a responsibility of ours. I don't understand what you are refering too. I didn't see the words 'rule' and 'authority' at all in EmilyAnn's post. Neither did I mention one word on 'rule' and 'authority' over animals. I only spoke on abuse. There is a difference between rule, authority and abuse. No, you mentioned "abuse" Why don't you tell me what the difference is between the three of them then? OC Yes, I did mention abuse, not rule or authority. God's rule whom has all authority is never abusive. Then I did understand your meaning very well the first time as I saw the link you was giving between rule and abuse. You still didn't tell me the difference between the three of them being rule, authority, and abuse. Which for the record I already know what you are trying to push her and that is men who rule over their wives are abusive husbands. That is a lie firehill that you are propagating her among us plain and simple. But I am wondering from what you have so said just how far do you take that mindset and wonder do you believe in the Godhead at all being the Father, Son and Holy Spirit this is the trinity as I don't think you have a clue at all how the trinity is set up and works. God did put man over the animals of the earth to "rule" over them but of course not to "abuse" them Do you not see Christ submitting His will to the Father's "RULE" when on earth do you see it as "abuse" because Jesus obey the Father's authority over Him. OC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Openly Curious Posted May 22, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 55 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 4,568 Content Per Day: 0.68 Reputation: 770 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/18/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted May 22, 2007 Why debate OopsMartin, he's dishonest. Below are links to his posts, and the websites he plagiarized with these posts...in this topic alone. People, why waste your time?: Post #1 Post #2 Website for both Post #3 Website for Post #3 Post #4 Website for Post #4 LOL how mercy oc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OopsMartin Posted May 22, 2007 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 4 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 829 Content Per Day: 0.13 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 07/26/1943 Author Share Posted May 22, 2007 Someone has really gone off the deep end. Plagerism is where one uses another's words as if they were his own. All I've done is quoted from books. Yes, I did get all those quotes from the list on "About Biblical Equality" except from the ones I typed directly from the books I have. So what? And I did not copy the quotes from MetaCrocks Blog or God's Word to Women as you say. A lot of people read these books and quote from them. Oh, so you just got lucky and had the same opinion and commentary as all of them, word for word? Read my lips. I Q U O T E D from them, even gave the page numbers. Do you know what it means to quote someone? and this is all the attention you get AK. I know your intent is to disrupt the thread, since that is your MO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColleenLovesMischief Posted May 22, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 100 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 2,791 Content Per Day: 0.37 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 10/21/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 06/13/1977 Share Posted May 22, 2007 Someone has really gone off the deep end. Plagerism is where one uses another's words as if they were his own. All I've done is quoted from books. Yes, I did get all those quotes from the list on "About Biblical Equality" except from the ones I typed directly from the books I have. So what? And I did not copy the quotes from MetaCrocks Blog or God's Word to Women as you say. A lot of people read these books and quote from them. Oh, so you just got lucky and had the same opinion and commentary as all of them, word for word? Read my lips. I Q U O T E D from them, even gave the page numbers. Do you know what it means to quote someone? There was no plagurism...only quotes, and references were cited.....legal and this is all the attention you get AK. I know your intent is to disrupt the thread, since that is your MO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted May 22, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.21 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted May 22, 2007 Someone has really gone off the deep end. Plagerism is where one uses another's words as if they were his own. All I've done is quoted from books. Yes, I did get all those quotes from the list on "About Biblical Equality" except from the ones I typed directly from the books I have. So what? And I did not copy the quotes from MetaCrocks Blog or God's Word to Women as you say. A lot of people read these books and quote from them. Oh, so you just got lucky and had the same opinion and commentary as all of them, word for word? Read my lips. I Q U O T E D from them, even gave the page numbers. Do you know what it means to quote someone? and this is all the attention you get AK. I know your intent is to disrupt the thread, since that is your MO. But you failed to mention the sites you P L A G I A R I Z E D. One of them added in commentary that you quoted and never included in your citation. You did this with 5 posts in another thread. So I guess that's your MO. You got your hand caught in the cookie jar, again, and so now you're lashing out at me for it. You also can't say that I'm disrupting the thread - I made a post that you didn't respond to at all. Instead, you changed the direction of the discussion. Nice try - you've been caught. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Openly Curious Posted May 22, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 4 Topic Count: 55 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 4,568 Content Per Day: 0.68 Reputation: 770 Days Won: 0 Joined: 01/18/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted May 22, 2007 OC:Ruling and having authority over the animals of the earth is not abuse firehill it is a responsibility to care for them else they would run amuck on the face of the earth the cows have to be milked everyday and so forth it is a place of responsiblity. Good points. We are to care for them and they are a responsibility of ours. I don't understand what you are refering too. I didn't see the words 'rule' and 'authority' at all in EmilyAnne's post. Neither did I mention one word on 'rule' and 'authority' over animals. I only spoke on abuse. There is a difference between rule, authority and abuse. No, you mentioned "abuse" Why don't you tell me what the difference is between the three of them then? OC Yes, I did mention abuse, not rule or authority. God's rule whom has all authority is never abusive. And the same goes for my husband's authority. God did not intend for a husband's authority over his wife to be abusive. Authority does not necessarily equal abuse. And the authority we have over our pets also is not abusive. Granted some people exercise their authority in an abusive way, but that is not God's way. God's design for authority is more like being under an umbrella that protects us. What I was trying to address in my original post was the definitions posted of subdue and dominion made it sound like we should feel free to go ahead torture and abuse all the animals we want to. I know that is not what was meant. Very well said Emily Anne but to firehill "RULE" = "ABUSE" and to her the curse isn't real of course I see that several of you in this thread already figured that out as well as myself. But she got to do away with the "rule" part of things you know. OC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted May 22, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.09 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted May 22, 2007 and this is all the attention you get AK. I know your intent is to disrupt the thread, since that is your MO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted May 22, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.21 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted May 22, 2007 and this is all the attention you get AK. I know your intent is to disrupt the thread, since that is your MO. Get off the bandwagon...I swear, if the Anti-Christ badmouthed me, some of you would line up along side him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted May 22, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 331 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 8,713 Content Per Day: 1.21 Reputation: 21 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/28/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted May 22, 2007 Okay, let's go for more evidence here: Post #1 from Feminism Thread Website for Post #1 Do I need to go on? We're up to 5 now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firehill Posted May 22, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,980 Content Per Day: 0.30 Reputation: 2 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/17/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted May 22, 2007 OC:Ruling and having authority over the animals of the earth is not abuse firehill it is a responsibility to care for them else they would run amuck on the face of the earth the cows have to be milked everyday and so forth it is a place of responsiblity. Good points. We are to care for them and they are a responsibility of ours. I don't understand what you are refering too. I didn't see the words 'rule' and 'authority' at all in EmilyAnne's post. Neither did I mention one word on 'rule' and 'authority' over animals. I only spoke on abuse. There is a difference between rule, authority and abuse. No, you mentioned "abuse" Why don't you tell me what the difference is between the three of them then? OC Yes, I did mention abuse, not rule or authority. God's rule whom has all authority is never abusive. What I was trying to address in my original post was the definitions posted of subdue and dominion made it sound like we should feel free to go ahead torture and abuse all the animals we want to. I know that is not what was meant. My computer keeps freezing... Thanks for clearing this up, KatyAnn. I missed that the context (definitions posted of subdue and domination) you meant your post in was on a different page. I replied according to what was only written in your post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts