DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Religious Dick on November 16, 2008, 05:18:43 PM
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33xbmB2O-r0[/youtube]
-
It's a complicated world.
-
Not when it comes to this. People are against it, mostly for religious reasons. That's true all over the world.
-
I just find it interesting that perhaps the protesters should be picketing Obama's house in stead of Mormon Churches, hating on religious white folk.
Seems his get out the vote strategy was the scale tipper.
Did Rev Wright ever give a sermon about gay marriage?
-
Hmmm...
So relitively conservative Mexicans can swamp the gay voice in the Democrat party ,if they continue to immagrate at the same rates as they have been?
What prevents the Gays from takeing over the Republican party and trying to win with a "western" strategy?
-
What prevents the Gays from takeing over the Republican party and trying to win with a "western" strategy?
That is a truly unlikely occurrence. Perhaps one of the weridest theory you have come up with to date.
A Western strategy would not result in a majority of the population. Observe that California is the only heavily populated state west of the Mississippi. There would also be a revulsion factor as well. Tom Tancredo, the most anti-Mexican guy in Congress is a Republican. Do you think that a Gay Republican Party would actually carry Utah?
-
What prevents the Gays from takeing over the Republican party and trying to win with a "western" strategy?
That is a truly unlikely occurrence. Perhaps one of the weridest theory you have come up with to date.
A Western strategy would not result in a majority of the population. Observe that California is the only heavily populated state west of the Mississippi. There would also be a revulsion factor as well. Tom Tancredo, the most anti-Mexican guy in Congress is a Republican. Do you think that a Gay Republican Party would actually carry Utah?
It is no more unatural than the Republican "southern" strategy of myth and legend.
If the Democrats and Republicans have entirely swapped membership before, what stopps them from doing so again?
-
It is impractical, because there are not as many votes in the West as there are in the South.
You can believe all you want in the gays taking over Utah, but it won't happen, not ever.
The Gay and Lesbian population never exceeds 10% in any population. Presumably, they could all move to some underpopulated state and take it over, but this is even less likely than the Libertarians taking over New Hampshire, as some Libertarians have suggested. That won't happen, either.
Most people are just not so deeply into politics that they let it dominate their lves and al the decisions they make to live their lives.
Again, this is a deeply weird idea.
The Democrats and Republicans have never entirely swapped membership before. All that happened is that Southern bigots left the Democratic Party, because they did nt want to share with newly franchised Black voters. First they switched to Wallace, and then when Wallace was crippled by a would-be assassin, they switched to the Republican Party, at first only in presidential elections. The rest of the country did not switch.
-
It is impractical, because there are not as many votes in the West as there are in the South.
You can believe all you want in the gays taking over Utah, but it won't happen, not ever.
The Gay and Lesbian population never exceeds 10% in any population. Presumably, they could all move to some underpopulated state and take it over, but this is even less likely than the Libertarians taking over New Hampshire, as some Libertarians have suggested. That won't happen, either.
Most people are just not so deeply into politics that they let it dominate their lves and al the decisions they make to live their lives.
Again, this is a deeply weird idea.
The Democrats and Republicans have never entirely swapped membership before. All that happened is that Southern bigots left the Democratic Party, because they did nt want to share with newly franchised Black voters. First they switched to Wallace, and then when Wallace was crippled by a would-be assassin, they switched to the Republican Party, at first only in presidential elections. The rest of the country did not switch.
It is not a bit more weird ,less likely or concerned with reality than is the "Southern Strategy" which actually gets taken seriously.
When it was supposed to have happened there were a lot more votes in the north than the south, New England was still "rock ribbed " no less than the south was "yellow dog". There has never been a reason for the Republicans to woo racists , there has only been a good reason for Democrats to dump them. Bully for you that dumped them , but the same reasons you didn't want them apply and we don't want them either.
-
The vision of a collapsed society, where men abandon their wives in droves to 'become gay, consumed these callers".
Seriously, is this some kind of joke? The most liberal estimates by sociologists put gays, both closeted and out, at around 7-10% of the population. Two states and several countries allow gay marriage. Surely there is some corroborating evidence that allowing gay marriage results in men abandoning their wives in droves to become gay. Isn't there? I would laugh at the absurdity of such a statement if it weren't for the fact that people are using rationales like this to vote against gay marriage. If you're opposed to it, fine, but don't lean on total absurdities, like the one above to make your case. It's offensive in its stupidity.
-
It is not a bit more weird ,less likely or concerned with reality than is the "Southern Strategy" which actually gets taken seriously.
=========================
It gets taken seriously because it was announced as the strategy of the Republican Party under both Nixon and Reagan. It's not some sort of myth. Richard Vigerie and a bunch of Republican strategists came up with it. I think the name was even on the cover of Time magazine.
Why do you suppose Reagan decided to make a big deal of giving a speech in the podunk town of Philadelphia, Mississippi--a place that despite its name, was never noted for "brotherly love", but a vile lynching. This was the Southern Strategy in action, a way of saying "kluxers and bigots, racists and haters-- Daddy Reagan loves you".
-
The vision of a collapsed society, where men abandon their wives in droves to 'become gay, consumed these callers".
Seriously, is this some kind of joke? The most liberal estimates by sociologists put gays, both closeted and out, at around 7-10% of the population. Two states and several countries allow gay marriage. Surely there is some corroborating evidence that allowing gay marriage results in men abandoning their wives in droves to become gay. Isn't there? I would laugh at the absurdity of such a statement if it weren't for the fact that people are using rationales like this to vote against gay marriage. If you're opposed to it, fine, but don't lean on total absurdities, like the one above to make your case. It's offensive in its stupidity.
And even more - if a woman is married to a man who is gay - albeit "in the closet" - wouldn't she prefer him to go and live his life rather than continuing the marriage on false pretenses?
-
And even more - if a woman is married to a man who is gay - albeit "in the closet" - wouldn't she prefer him to go and live his life rather than continuing the marriage on false pretenses?
========================================
This is probably true in some, perhaps most cases, but I doubt that it would be the preference in all of them.
-
It gets taken seriously because it was announced as the strategy of the Republican Party under both Nixon and Reagan.
Announced?
I didn't know that , who announced it?
-
I didn't know that , who announced it?
Nixon and his campaign manager. Reagan and his campaign manager.
-
I didn't know that , who announced it?
Nixon and his campaign manager. Reagan and his campaign manager.
They announced that they were going to do something positive for White supremacy?
-
They announced that they were going to do something positive for White supremacy?
They announced that they were going to try to get the votes of White supremecists in order to get elected. The kluxers had little choice: they could vote for Nixon or Reagan or a *gasp!* antiwar liberal, possibly a Black one.
And that is what they did. They voted for McCain, too, and you know it.
-
They announced that they were going to try to get the votes of White supremecists in order to get elected
Who announced this?
Sounds like an urban legend to me.
-
I am sure many things that are true sound like urban legends to you. Perhaps this is more of a rural legend.
-
Mr. Literal strikes again. Perhaps you can actually produce a quote, to take out out of the realm of urban legend, and make it a fact, vs your repetative uncredible obvious references
-
Well, I looked it up in about three milliseconds, so it wasn't the well hidden "urban legend" you imagined it to be. Then I posted it all in its very own post, and behold: Wikipedia pretty much agrees with what I said about it.
Why would Reagan have gone, specifically, to Philadelphia Mississippi, if not to appeal to White Supremacists who were not even convicted until Reagan was out of office?
-
In other words, no quote to back up the asanine claim They announced that they were going to try to get the votes of White supremecists in order to get elected. Kinda what I thought
-
Again,
Why would Reagan have gone, specifically, to Philadelphia Mississippi, if not to appeal to White Supremacists who were not even convicted until Reagan was out of office?
No presidential candidate is going to declare that they are catering to racists, but that does not mean that they did not troll for their votes. Going to Philadelphia, MS was a symbolic act to let it be understood that yes, we know how you decent upstandin' White folks felt when all then Nawthern agitaters come down to Mississippi to meddle in y'all's affairs and get the darkies all upset.
Why else did Reagan choose this specific place?
-
Again, no quote, or even innuendo. Thank you
-
Again,
Why would Reagan have gone, specifically, to Philadelphia Mississippi, if not to appeal to White Supremacists who were not even convicted until Reagan was out of office?
Well, he had already been nominated by the RNC. Do you think that they would have voted for Carter if he had not gone to the county fair? Or was Carter's visit to the town where the KKK National Headquarters was located to give a speech also a coded message to the white supremacists?
-
In the case of the White Supremacists, it wasn't a case of voting for Carter or for Reagan, but voting for Reagan and not voting at all. The intent of the Reagan campaign was to get them to vote AGAINST Carter and the Democrats--the party that had betrayed White folks by admitting Black people to its membership.
It is normally easier to get people to vote against than to vote for someone or something.
Reagan and his staff would never admit that they were going to make things easier on White Supremacists, although that is what they did: no action was taken during the Reagan administration against the Mississippi Burning case. All Reagan had to do was to appoint good ol' local boys to the local FBI offices, just as he named anti-union people to the NLRB.
So when he is elected, there is no investigation because the locals do not see sufficient evidence. The anti-union NLRB staffers decide on behalf of the employers every time.
-
In the case of the White Supremacists, it wasn't a case of voting for Carter or for Reagan, but voting for Reagan and not voting at all. The intent of the Reagan campaign was to get them to vote AGAINST Carter and the Democrats--the party that had betrayed White folks by admitting Black people to its membership.
It is normally easier to get people to vote against than to vote for someone or something.
Reagan and his staff would never admit that they were going to make things easier on White Supremacists, although that is what they did: no action was taken during the Reagan administration against the Mississippi Burning case. All Reagan had to do was to appoint good ol' local boys to the local FBI offices, just as he named anti-union people to the NLRB.
So when he is elected, there is no investigation because the locals do not see sufficient evidence. The anti-union NLRB staffers decide on behalf of the employers every time.
What did Carter do about the Missippi burning case?
You are not makeing a strong case here , in my opinion.
That Reagan went to Philidelphia Missippi doesn't tell me about a decision of Nixions more than a decacade earlyer. There is a festaval there every year and politicians go where the crouds gather , if BHO goes there will that signify a southern strategy on his part?
Best of all, please read the article that you posted , in which the author states that the solid southwas converted from a bastion of Democrat power into a set of important swing states. This is a change in the state of the States , not in the partys .
Then here you say that "wasn't a case of voting for Carter or for Reagan, but voting for Reagan and not voting at all."
So even as you make the case for "Southern Strategy " being real , you admit that it was passive ,and that Nixon or Reagan needed do nothing nor even promise anything to reap the effect.
So if the "Southern Strategy" isn't a myth what result did White supremicy harvest from it? Since FDR there have been more Republicans than Democrats , and Civil Rights advanced for Black people with either party in office.
To me it seems wrong for either party to claim too much credit , the big change happened in the grass roots.
-
http://www.neshobacountyfair.org/history.html (http://www.neshobacountyfair.org/history.html)
-
So if the "Southern Strategy" isn't a myth what result did White supremicy harvest from it? Since FDR there have been more Republicans than Democrats , and Civil Rights advanced for Black people with either party in office.
To me it seems wrong for either party to claim too much credit , the big change happened in the grass roots.
It was not a myth. It was an intentional strategy. Reagan's apprearence in Philadelphia was symbolic, the symbolism being that the White supremacists did not have to stay at home or vote for a losing third party: they could vote for Ronald Reagan. What they got out of it was that during all of Reagan's term, racial crimes dating back to the 1960's were not prosecuted. This would have been different if different people had been appointed to local FBI offices.
The main factor in the end of white supremacy happened at the grass roots, of course, and it was caused by the death of the kluxers and supremacists due to old age and diseases than came with it. I suppose one could argue that moonshine and tobacco killed off more kluxers than anything else.
-
Reagan's apprearence in Philadelphia was symbolic, the symbolism being that the White supremacists did not have to stay at home or vote for a losing third party: they could vote for Ronald Reagan.
Jimmy Carter making speeches in the home town of the KKK Headquarters must have likewise been symbolic; the white supremacists could count on the southern Democrats to continue their support for racist policies.
Goes both ways.
-
The "Hometown of KKK Headquarters"? Where was that? Tuskaloosa? Forty Wayne? It was not a symbolic place to anyone. The KKK was organized and reorganized and split into a variety of splinter groups and none of their headquarters were as symbolic as Philadelphia, Mississippi, which was notorious everywhere as the place where a couple of Jewish radicals and their Black pal were murdered with the aide of the police and no one did a thing about it.
-
The "Hometown of KKK Headquarters"? Where was that? Tuskaloosa? Forty Wayne? It was not a symbolic place to anyone.
Tuscumbia, Alabama. There is pretty much nothing else of interest there except for the headquarters of the KKK, so it must have been a symbolic nod to the white supremacists.
-
Obviously
-
The same idiots crying about gay marriage ruining their way of life and straight marriages are the same ones who have 50% divorce rate.
it is important to remember the words of the Bible from Malachi 2:16a: “I hate divorce, says the Lord God of Israel.” According to the Bible, God’s plan is that marriage be a lifetime commitment. “So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate” (Matthew 19:6). God realizes, though, that since a marriage involves two sinful human beings, divorce is going to occur. In the Old Testament, He laid down some laws in order to protect the rights of divorcees, especially women (Deuteronomy 24:1-4). Jesus pointed out that these laws were given because of the hardness of people’s hearts, not because they were God’s desire (Matthew 19:8).
http://www.gotquestions.org/divorce-remarriage.html (http://www.gotquestions.org/divorce-remarriage.html)
-
And who the hell is claiming that gay marriage is ruining any person's individual life??
If a person who thinks that anyone with a walk with God is delusional, posts a scripture for us delusional folks to remember, let's also remember the words of the God; 1 Corinthians 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous, neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God
I'm guessing H now will come back with how God may have referenced 2 men, but since he didn't mention 2 women, that'll be ok, since it wasn't made specific
-
Or do you not know that the unrighteous, neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God
===========================================
Inherit the kingdom of God? How is that possible? Doesn't someone have to die before anyone can inherit their stuff?
I thought God was immortal. I never even heard that he was sick.
Maybe that was a bit of scripture that I missed.
The Bible was written by men. They didn't pay a lot of attention to what the girls were up to. In Hebrew culture, the women were supposed to keep to themselves. Lord knows what they were up to.
The thought probably never occurred to them that Lesbian sex was possible.
-
Mr Literal will simply have to take his question up with God himself
-
All I'm saying is maybe the nutjob religious whackjob morons ought remove the board from their own eye before they worry about the moat in someone else's.
-
The same idiots crying about gay marriage ruining their way of life and straight marriages are the same ones who have 50% divorce rate.
it is important to remember the words of the Bible from Malachi 2:16a: “I hate divorce, says the Lord God of Israel.” According to the Bible, God’s plan is that marriage be a lifetime commitment. “So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate” (Matthew 19:6). God realizes, though, that since a marriage involves two sinful human beings, divorce is going to occur. In the Old Testament, He laid down some laws in order to protect the rights of divorcees, especially women (Deuteronomy 24:1-4). Jesus pointed out that these laws were given because of the hardness of people’s hearts, not because they were God’s desire (Matthew 19:8).
http://www.gotquestions.org/divorce-remarriage.html (http://www.gotquestions.org/divorce-remarriage.html)
That is a problem just as you describe , but what is the relationship between the two problems?
-
All I'm saying is maybe the nutjob religious whackjob morons ought remove the board from their own eye before they worry about the moat in someone else's.
Minus the standard insult-o-meter response, couldn't answer the question, could you.
-
If a person who thinks that anyone with a walk with God is delusional, posts a scripture for us delusional folks to remember, let's also remember the words of the God; 1 Corinthians 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous, neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God
Are any of the above, with the exception of the sexually immoral, denied the ability to marry under US law?
Should they be?
-
If a person who thinks that anyone with a walk with God is delusional, posts a scripture for us delusional folks to remember, let's also remember the words of the God; 1 Corinthians 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous, neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God
Are any of the above, with the exception of the sexually immoral, denied the ability to marry under US law?
Marry?, no. Have equal rights under U.S. law, analogous to marriage?, yes
Should they be?
Yes.....marriage is between a man and a woman
-
If a person who thinks that anyone with a walk with God is delusional, posts a scripture for us delusional folks to remember, let's also remember the words of the God; 1 Corinthians 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous, neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God
Are any of the above, with the exception of the sexually immoral, denied the ability to marry under US law?
Should they be?
Some on that list get arrested, should they all be?
-
Yes.....marriage is between a man and a woman
Marriage is between whomever the law says it is.
The church can define what its rules are regarding marriage, and admit or ban whomever it chooses as it wishes.
The state can do the same regarding civil marriages. The problem is that the overly pious want to impose their religious restrictions on everyone. Since the state does not tell the churches whom it can marry (it never tries to force a Catholic priest to marry divorced people, for example) the church should not be able to tell the state whom it can marry in a civil ceremony.
The only restriction are religious bigots, who want to impose their church's morality on th state, which they should have no right to do in the US. Hebrew laws were written when the Church was the state. Christian laws date back to the time when the R.C. Church was proclaimed the state Church of Rome.
Why the Christians insist on mistranslating words like "inherit" is anyone's guess.
-
1 Corinthians 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous, neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God
Did you ever stop to think they might not want to?
I'm guessing H now will come back with how God may have referenced 2 men, but since he didn't mention 2 women, that'll be ok, since it wasn't made specific
Idiot.
-
Did you ever stop to think they might not want to?
=========================================
Often, this is the case. But in the case of the misuse of the work "Inherit", I don't see why they would.
To inherit something, the previous owner must die, in the usual English use of this word.
If the Godly inherit th Kingdom, does this not suggest that God would need to die first? And, no, God, not Jesus.
God was in charge of Heaven from the git-go.
-
inherit
v.tr.
- To receive (property or a title, for example) from an ancestor by legal succession or will.
- To receive by bequest or as a legacy.
- To receive or take over from a predecessor: The new administration inherited the economic problems of the last four years.
- Biology. To receive (a characteristic) from one's parents by genetic transmission.
- To gain (something) as one's right or portion.
v.intr.
- To hold or take possession of an inheritance.
I'd say that the word in the Bible uses definition #4.
-
1 Corinthians 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous, neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God
Did you ever stop to think they might not want to?
Say what?.....now there's a tweaked question. I'm doubting those pursuing such immoral & illegal behavior have the Kindom of God on their mind, as they traverse on in their lives. Nor does it require me to think what they may want. ::)
I'm guessing H now will come back with how God may have referenced 2 men, but since he didn't mention 2 women, that'll be ok, since it wasn't made specific
Idiot.
Moron
There, all better, equally insulted. I mean, you were the one that initiated the largely irrelevent red herring of no word marriage in the bible until Jacob, and then referencing how there's no specificity to it. I was simply applying the same brand of circular (il)logic. Now, if you're referring to your original query about the bible & marriage as idiotic, then my apologies
-
Reagan's apprearence in Philadelphia was symbolic, the symbolism being that the White supremacists did not have to stay at home or vote for a losing third party: they could vote for Ronald Reagan.
Jimmy Carter making speeches in the home town of the KKK Headquarters must have likewise been symbolic; the white supremacists could count on the southern Democrats to continue their support for racist policies.
Goes both ways.
Those days are long gone. The South , where most of the heavy duty racists reside, is now heavily Repub. You must at least join the 20th century if the 21st is too much for you.
-
Those days are long gone. The South , where most of the heavy duty racists reside, is now heavily Repub. You must at least join the 20th century if the 21st is too much for you.
Perhaps you should tell XO to stop bringing up the 1980 election then. I was only responding to a claim about the 1980 election with a claim about 1980 election. They are contemporary.
-
I mean, you were the one that initiated the largely irrelevent red herring of no word marriage in the bible until Jacob, and then referencing how there's no specificity to it. I was simply applying the same brand of circular (il)logic. Now, if you're referring to your original query about the bible & marriage as idiotic, then my apologies
Nope, referring to you as the idiot. You can add insufferable prick and number one asshole. You may not like that I questioned the right's attempt to reserve the use of the word marriage to refer to only heterosexual couples, but you had no reason to start this shit up.
-
I mean, you were the one that initiated the largely irrelevent red herring of no word marriage in the bible until Jacob, and then referencing how there's no specificity to it. I was simply applying the same brand of circular (il)logic. Now, if you're referring to your original query about the bible & marriage as idiotic, then my apologies
Nope, referring to you as the idiot.
Well, that apparently makes you the moron then
You may not like that I questioned the right's attempt to reserve the use of the word marriage to refer to only heterosexual couples, but you had no reason to start this shit up.
You can start anything you want. Has nothing to do with what I like or dislike, and at no time have I ever implied that "the right" has some monopoly on the word marriage. That is yet another one of your leaps of illogic Has everything to do with demonstrating the void in the thought process you were trying to apply. Which then causes the standard fling of insults, as we've been witness to, yet again. and anyone can go back to witness where this "started up". Hint, it was the query about where marriage in the bible was specific to a man & woman only
-
v.intr.
* To hold or take possession of an inheritance.
I'd say that the word in the Bible uses definition #4.
============================
Well, that is the closest definition, but again, inheritance implies someone either relinquished a possession, or died and left it to an heir, the possession in question being the "Kingdom of Heaven", presumably a Godly possession since well, forever.
Is it suggested in the Bible that God will die and stay dead? Jesus died, but he came back, so for him it turned out to be a bit of a stunt. Perhaps a really cool stunt, and certainly his best stunt, but a stunt nonetheless.
God the Father is not, so far as I know, even mortal, nor even sick.
The Holy Spirit...well, who knows what the poo he is up to?
Is it suggested anywhere in Christian theology that God will relinquish his control of his Kingdom?
This might be suggested by Mormon theology where every soul can become a Deity, but it isn't the standard Christian practice so far as I know.
-
You can start anything you want.
Obviously, and you often do. You had no reason to drag my name into your little snit with XO and make some moronic speculation on what I would or would not do. None, other than to take some sort of shot at me. It's what you do.
So fuck you.
-
Like I said H, simply applying the same circular illogic as you were in the other thread, minus all the huff & puff 3rd grade insulting. That's apparently what you do, when anyone dares to challange your thought process
You have good day
-
Well, that is the closest definition, but again, inheritance implies someone either relinquished a possession, or died and left it to an heir, the possession in question being the "Kingdom of Heaven", presumably a Godly possession since well, forever.
Luke 15:11-32 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2015:11-32;&version=50;)
-
Like I said H, simply applying the same same circular illogic as you were in the other thread, minus all the huff & puff 3rd grade insulting. That's apparently what you do, when anyone dares to challange your thought process
Then do it using your own thoughts and words, rather than making some dumbass comment speculating on what you think I may have to say about a subject. Or do you not get that?
-
It's easier to demonstrate the flaw in a particular poster's thought process, being applied to such a huge issue as gay marriage. Especially as transparent as it was. I'll try to use an alias next time, if that helps. I'll call 'em N
-
I posted a question. No one could give me an answer. If you don't like it, tough. Don't post for me, don't drag me into your discussions with others, don't post what you think - usually incorrectly - I might or might not do, think or say.
Capisce?
-
Luke 15:11-32
A parable, and irrelevant to the issue at hand.
-
Luke 15:11-32
A parable, and irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Talks about a father giving his sons their inheritance before he dies. Seems like it's relevant to me.
-
A parable, and irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Talks about a father giving his sons their inheritance before he dies. Seems like it's relevant to me.
============================================
It is relevant if God is planning to die: is that, in fact the case?
I think not.
-
It is relevant if God is planning to die: is that, in fact the case?
I think not.
You can give a portion of your kingdom to your children whether or not you're planning on dying.
-
Luke 15:11-32
A parable, and irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Being given an inheritance does not require someone to die. The parable illustrates that. That makes it relevant.