OopsMartin Posted May 25, 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 25, 2007 So then Eve's testimony was a second wittness of God's command that He gave. I'm looking forward to hearing more about how God establishes His Law. Interesting, eh! That would be an excellent discussion, indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
methinkshe Posted May 25, 2007 Group: Senior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 32 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 679 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 14 Days Won: 1 Joined: 03/02/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted May 25, 2007 "The reasoning that I have quoted in this entry is from copyrighted material by Cheryl Schatz on 1 Corinthians 11." I think that it is very important that Cheryl Schatz copyrights her material because otherwise it could be used by anyone without due acknowledgment and royalties to the author. Thank God that His Word is free to all and has no copyright. In Jesus Ruth Hi Ruth, I was told this morning from the admin to this board that I am not allowed to link to my blog where I have many articles on this subject. I was also told that I must give credit to any copyrights and since I have authored a DVD series that is copyrighted I must credit myself. Does that make sense? Yes, I too am wonderfully glad that God's word is free. It is not only free, but it sets us free. Blessings to you sister, Cheryl No. A request by the mods to not link your personal blog does not imply that every point of debate that you make should reference your copyright material - at least, that's how I see it. In Jesus, Ruth Hi, Since I only referenced the copyrighted material once and yet have written many times on different points of the debate, I would think that we are in agreement. These bulletin boards are lots of fun, but so time consuming! I am off to help my dear husband who is in need of my helper abilities so I will be away from this discussion till probably late tonight. It has been a pleasure to clear up any misconceptions and to give my thoughts too on good biblical texts. What a wonderful format that we have here on this discussion board! We have such an opportunity as brothers and sisters in Christ to love each other even though we can strongly disagree. That is grace in action and boy, we all need grace. Blessings! Cheryl Oh, yes, these bulletin boards are, indeed, "lots of fun". But there comes a stage when one must "earnestly contend for the faith once and for all given..." Dear Cheryl, I do not know you apart from what you have presented of yourself on this Board, but from that I am able to recognise that you are a slippery character! Why? Because I, too, was one. Able to use language to one's advantage. Only Jesus got me by the neck some time ago and told me in no uncertain terms that if I take from or add to His Word, I have attempted to take from the very nature of God - an impossibility - but the end result if I persist in adding to and/or taking from the Scripture is that I end up inventing and worshipping a god after my own imaginatioon - and imaginary gods cannot save. And before you plead that you are neither adding to or taking from, watch out for "wresting" the Scriptures! In Jesus, Ruth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OopsMartin Posted May 25, 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 25, 2007 From "Fallacy", The Counterfeit of Argument", pg. 99 Personal attacks: 'ad hominem' Damning an opponent is a common and odious method of damning the source (see #19:'Damning the Origin). Personal attacks are effective because it is difficult to credit a man who has been tarred and feathered with obloquy. there is no argument easier to construct or harder to combat than character assassination, and this may be the reason personal attacks are so commonly on the lips of ignorance and demagogy. The armory of personal abuse is inexhaustible......" Let's not do this anymore, eh. We are after all a Christian forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Openly Curious Posted May 25, 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 25, 2007 'inhistime' You are mixing up head coverings and hair. You said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
methinkshe Posted May 25, 2007 Group: Senior Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 32 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 679 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 14 Days Won: 1 Joined: 03/02/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted May 25, 2007 From "Fallacy", The Counterfeit of Argument", pg. 99 Personal attacks: 'ad hominem' Damning an opponent is a common and odious method of damning the source (see #19:'Damning the Origin). Personal attacks are effective because it is difficult to credit a man who has been tarred and feathered with obloquy. there is no argument easier to construct or harder to combat than character assassination, and this may be the reason personal attacks are so commonly on the lips of ignorance and demagogy. The armory of personal abuse is inexhaustible......" Let's not do this anymore, eh. We are after all a Christian forum. My apologies. I did not consider my post an ad hom but rather a recognition of, and confession of, and sharing of, similar tendencies to use a literary ability/a facility for the English language to substantiate a point of debate. If my post has come across as anything other than this then of course it should be deleted. It was not my intent to DAMN my oppponent but rather to draw alongside her. If I have been clumsy in my execution of this intent, then I apologise again. In Jesus, Ruth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovedya Posted May 25, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 375 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 11,400 Content Per Day: 1.44 Reputation: 125 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/30/2002 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/14/1971 Share Posted May 25, 2007 Ahhh....... Sorry, I lost track of things here. Were we still going to set up a debate of some sort in Soapbox, or has than been decided against. Please PM me with your responses. It'll be easier to set up that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firehill Posted May 25, 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 25, 2007 First the 1 Co 11 thread on kephale was closed. Now the Eph 5 thread on kephale is closed. There are two DIFFERENT metaphors used in those passages. Why is there a need to cram everything together without a fair look at what the passages are saying on THEIR OWN MERIT? I don't understand this. The tendency I see is for many to want to throw it all together in a pile and then try to sort it all out while the passages themselves written and arranged by the authors don't even do that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted May 25, 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 25, 2007 First the 1 Co 11 thread on kephale was closed. Now the Eph 5 thread on kephale is closed. There are two DIFFERENT metaphors used in those passages. Why is there a need to cram everything together without a fair look at what the passages are saying on THEIR OWN MERIT? I don't understand this. The tendency I see is for many to want to throw it all together in a pile and then try to sort it all out while the passages themselves written and arranged by the authors don't even do that! Because the mods probably see it as most of the people on this thread do - the original topic of this post was meant for a discussion on kephale. Neopatriarch and myself put out posts on this, dealing with the original post. They were never responded to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firehill Posted May 25, 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 25, 2007 First the 1 Co 11 thread on kephale was closed. Now the Eph 5 thread on kephale is closed. There are two DIFFERENT metaphors used in those passages. Why is there a need to cram everything together without a fair look at what the passages are saying on THEIR OWN MERIT? I don't understand this. The tendency I see is for many to want to throw it all together in a pile and then try to sort it all out while the passages themselves written and arranged by the authors don't even do that! Because the mods probably see it as most of the people on this thread do - the original topic of this post was meant for a discussion on kephale. Neopatriarch and myself put out posts on this, dealing with the original post. They were never responded to. Oh, so we (mods, you, Oops) can come to an agreement to debate kephale in Eph 5 in the soapbox but not otherwise outside this thread? NONSENSE! This kind of NONSENSE is very revealing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apothanein kerdos Posted May 25, 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 25, 2007 First the 1 Co 11 thread on kephale was closed. Now the Eph 5 thread on kephale is closed. There are two DIFFERENT metaphors used in those passages. Why is there a need to cram everything together without a fair look at what the passages are saying on THEIR OWN MERIT? I don't understand this. The tendency I see is for many to want to throw it all together in a pile and then try to sort it all out while the passages themselves written and arranged by the authors don't even do that! Because the mods probably see it as most of the people on this thread do - the original topic of this post was meant for a discussion on kephale. Neopatriarch and myself put out posts on this, dealing with the original post. They were never responded to. Oh, so we (mods, you, Oops) can come to an agreement to debate kephale in Eph 5 in the soapbox but not otherwise outside this thread? NONSENSE! This kind of NONSENSE is very revealing. 1) There was no agreement reached 2) The debate would have been over the entire context of kephale 3) It would have been limited and not perpetual like this thread 4) It would have been limited in involvement, unlike this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts