Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So it is secretive?
Many things are like this, unless you experience them you cannot fully understand them. For us males childbirth would be one. I am sure that I will never fully understand it and most women would probably agree. Just saying that you don't fully understand because you haven't been through it does not make it secretive. It at best makes it private.
For growths sake, the Holy Spirit already reveals all things unto Gods own.
I've worked with some really incompetent teachers who had Ph.D's in education.
1 Timothy 3:8 limits the office of a deacon to men. I see in Romans 16:1 where Phoebe is described as such, but I think it more likely it was a reference to her role as a servant in such places where it would make more sense for a woman to serve.True for elders (pastors). Not true for deacons. Priscilla and Phoebe were both deacons.
I do not. Cordially, Skip.Interesting. So why criticize Masons in this regard?
As already noted, I do not agree. One does not directly equate sharaia with the desires of all U.S. Muslims. it would be interesting to know on which side of the argument muslims were on. I've seen no polls, but I'd guess shariah law is the last thing U.S. muslims would want to live under.smaneck said:It is an issue of singling out a specific religious community for discriminatory treatment.
You used the phrase in a constitutional context, which was incorrect, as I noted. It was not the intent of the founders, who recognized in many places the guiding hand of God in our development and successes.The phrase itself is from Thomas Jefferson, not the Constitution but that was clearly the intent of those who composed it.
Yes, necessarily. We are, and have always been, a nation under God. The wisdom of the structure is that we do not 'officially' define God's nature nor do we allow our government to prefer one belief over another. Regardless of their religious beliefs, the founders generally agreed with what I've noted.Not necessarily.
I think it is. Conceptually, it is designed to determine divine will by studying the Koran and other Islamic scripture, then to judge people accordingly. Nothing is more dangerous to a free society that to have its judicial system convinced they are acting in accordance with divine will.Nonsense. It is no threat whatsoever.
They don't need an excuse; Allah has commanded it.But if you want to give Muslims an excuse to wage jihad, laws like this will certainly provide them with one.
So you believe governments currently under shariah are just? Amazing; simply amazing.The purpose of a jihad is to establish a just government where people are free to live as Muslims.
That is ridiculous, and gloriously highlights the unserious nature of your complaint. The Constitution already guarantees the rights of people to engage in both practices. Cordially, Skip.This law doesn't just prohibit the cutting off of hands or stoning people to death (which no one was going to do here anyhow) it means that women can be prohibited from wearing a head scarf and Muslims not being allowed to say their daily prayers.
Hmm.
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. (1 Corinthians 13)
None of which makes HER incompetent, please note!
Nor is her Ph. D. in education, as I pointed out.
Mere ad hominem so far as I can see....
Bruce
Well that makes no sense.
Comparing childbirth to a secret?
Since when is anything worthy of God willing to lie?
I understand keeping secrets for the wicked want to destroy them, but pretending secrets are a means for prideful power?
For growths sake, the Holy Spirit already reveals all things unto Gods own.
I did not compare it to a secret. I compared it to understanding an experience. I have not told any lies about Masonry. We do have parts of our ritual that we are asked not to discuss with non-Masons. Masonry does not give me any power.
1 Timothy 3:8 limits the office of a deacon to men.
I see in Romans 16:1 where Phoebe is described as such, but I think it more likely it was a reference to her role as a servant in such places where it would make more sense for a woman to serve.
I do not see where Priscilla is described as such, and my references make no mention of her as one. She is always mentioned with her husband, Aquila, and undoubtedly served in the early church in significant ways.
I do not. Cordially, Skip.
Will you discuss those rituals? How come you have rituals? Is that initiation?
Surely Masonry gives you some kind of benefit.
Where is my apron of acceptance. I feel like paul pleading my cause to the Jews of his time. Minus the killing of Masons/and or Christians.
Here's the section in entirety (older NIV translation; other translations differ):smaneck said:Nothing about them having to be men.
I think the context clearly shows that males are being referred to in these passages. I have no understanding of Greek, but my interlinear, if I'm reading it right, clearly indicate males are being referred to in the usage of diakonous/diakonoi. Finally, "husbands of one wife" pretty much closes the case.Deacons (diakonous/plural, male), likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere, not indulging in much wine, and not pursuing dishonest gain. They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons (diakoneitOsan??). In the same way, their wives (gunaikas/plural, female) are to be women worthy of respect, not malicious talkers but temperate and trustworthy in everything. A deacon (diakonoi/plural, male) must be must be the husband of but one wife (gunaikos/singular female) and must manage his children and his household well. (1 Tim 3:8 - 12)
Indeed I do, and it's a place of honor. Personally, I think women are only useful for one thing: to make a man's life worth living. We are terribly incomplete without them.I see you *really* want to keep women in their place.
Of course they were, as I myself pointed out. But it's an inferential leap to call her a deacon, as she is no where described as such in the Bible. This is especially so given Paul's description of the requirements of a deacon as noted above.Among them remonstrating with Apollo over his views. Funny she never said, I'll let you handle this Aquila while I come home and fix supper like a good wivey. In fact women were leaders of the church in Philippe was well.
It can be one, I am sure. But their doctrine makes them something far bigger than that. Cordially, Skip.Ah, okay then I misunderstood you. I am not opposed to boy's clubs and as far as I'm concerned that is what the Masons are.
Here's the section in entirety (older NIV translation; other translations differ)
:I think the context clearly shows that males are being referred to in these passages.
I have no understanding of Greek, but my interlinear, if I'm reading it right, clearly indicate males are being referred to in the usage of diakonous/diakonoi.
Finally, "husbands of one wife" pretty much closes the case.
Personally, I think women are only useful for one thing: to make a man's life worth living.
Of course they were, as I myself pointed out. But it's an inferential leap to call her a deacon, as she is no where described as such in the Bible.
This is especially so given Paul's description of the requirements of a deacon as noted above.
The question pertained to Priscilla. You read more into her role than was stated.smaneck said:And when Phoenix is explicitly called that, you want to explain it away.
Very wise of you. Cordially, Skip.I won't even get into the whole argument of whether Paul wrote 1 Timothy.
Who were they? Maybe they'll be kind enough to state the error I'm supposed to have made. Cordially, Skip.In a private email, two brothers mentioned the same thing to me.
Is it true that "ad hominem" is a word for accussing others of not thinking, and instead getting emotional and irrational?
From what I understand they do...
Not in the least:
It's a standard term for someone who issues a personal attack on someone else instead of discussing the subject in question.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?