The Enlightened and Tolerent hoisted by their own petard

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

[Amianthus]

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.

[sirs]

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

[Knutey]

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.

[Amianthus]

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.

[hnumpah]

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.

[sirs]

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

[Xavier_Onassis]

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.

[hnumpah]

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.

[sirs]

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

[Universe Prince]

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

[hnumpah]

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?

[sirs]

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

[hnumpah]

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?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Luke 15:11-32


A parable, and irrelevant to the issue at hand.