[quote]orion wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:[quote]Sparky wrote: I don’t feel that there really IS a purpose to it, >>>[/quote]There is though. Not making light of your post or your good will in sharing it. (I knew you were gonna say this btw)[/quote]The how do you feel about him trying to frustrate that purpose by trying to help people?[/quote]How I feel is no more relevant than how you or he feels, but the purpose of the living God, “who works all things after the counsel of his own will” cannot be frustrated.
[/quote]
[quote]bigflamer wrote:<<< But, I have ZERO belief in your living god, so…[/quote]Your belief is no more ontologically relevant than mine in that regard either Sparky.
AP - ‘Tea party-backed state Treasurer Richard Mourdock won Indiana’s Republican nomination for Senate, defeating longtime Senator Richard Lugar. Mourdock will face Democratic U.S. Rep. Joe Donnelly in November.’
But I fully understand the why he doesn’t pursue it any further with you, and it isn’t because you’re cleaning his clocks or putting forward a particularly effective argument. It’s because you’re a stuck record, and you, TB, and I are all old enough to remember what a nut ache those were.[/quote]
And just to clarify, my discontinuation of dialogue with Tiribulus isn’t the function of anything he said in this thread, although I was growing tired of his “stuck record” approach here. It’s the result of a communication outside of this thread. I just didn’t want there to be any confusion.[/quote]You can tell them as far I’m concerned. If you’re being honorable by not divulging a private conversation I do hereby unprivatize my end. I have no problem publicly reporting that conversation. Unless you do?
Interesting book though.[/quote]
Romans 7:21-25 NASB[quote]21-I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. 22-For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, 23-but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members. 24-Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? 25-Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin. [/quote]
None. However, traditional still doesn’t mean oldest it means traditional. [/quote]How does traditional differ from: “A man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wifE and the two shall become one flesh” and “what God has joined together let no man put asunder”?
None. However, traditional still doesn’t mean oldest it means traditional. [/quote]How does traditional differ from: “A man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wifE and the two shall become one flesh” and “what God has joined together let no man put asunder”?
[/quote]
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:[quote]Brother Chris wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:[quote]Brother Chris wrote: traditional doesn’t mean oldest, it means traditional. [/quote]Which marriage is older than Adam and Eve’s Chris?[/quote]None. However, traditional still doesn’t mean oldest it means traditional. [/quote]How does traditional differ from: “A man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wifE and the two shall become one flesh” and “what God has joined together let no man put asunder”?
[/quote]Who says it differs?[/quote]So the marriage of Adam and Eve is both the oldest and is traditional? But they’re not the same? Ya worry me when ya do this stuff Chris.
any marriage in the sumerian culture or other pre-flood civilizations. You don’t mean the actual marriage though right as in they are real people but more the allegorical sense of the marriage of the first man and woman after creation, right?
any marriage in the sumerian culture or other pre-flood civilizations. You don’t mean the actual marriage though right as in they are real people but more the allegorical sense of the marriage of the first man and woman after creation, right?[/quote]No. I do not mean that. Neither did Jesus. I mean as in actual historical first humans created as reported whose archetypical marriage stands for all time until the final resurrection as THE foundation of what marriage is. Like Jesus said. Restored and further exalted in Christ. The last Adam.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:[quote]Brother Chris wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:[quote]Brother Chris wrote: traditional doesn’t mean oldest, it means traditional. [/quote]Which marriage is older than Adam and Eve’s Chris?[/quote]None. However, traditional still doesn’t mean oldest it means traditional. [/quote]How does traditional differ from: “A man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wifE and the two shall become one flesh” and “what God has joined together let no man put asunder”?
[/quote]Who says it differs?[/quote]So the marriage of Adam and Eve is both the oldest and is traditional? But they’re not the same? Ya worry me when ya do this stuff Chris.
[/quote]
If we lived shortly after Moses, traditional marriage would not look as it does today.
any marriage in the sumerian culture or other pre-flood civilizations. You don’t mean the actual marriage though right as in they are real people but more the allegorical sense of the marriage of the first man and woman after creation, right?[/quote]No. I do not mean that. Neither did Jesus. I mean as in actual historical first humans created as reported whose archetypical marriage stands for all time until the final resurrection as THE foundation of what marriage is. Like Jesus said. Restored and further exalted in Christ. The last Adam.
[/quote]
