Isaiah 3 and jewelry... - Page 104

MissBrattified · #**1031** 11-01-2010, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdp

Ahhh yes, the typical lib argument! You can deride me constantly, but when I put it back in your lap, you cry "foul play"

.

See thyself.......

No, the derision has begun with you. That's something I can definitely prove via copy/paste if need be.

Socialite · #**1032** 11-01-2010, 02:06 PM

Quote:

By the way, since "public mendicancy" means "dependent on alms for sustenance", and we have a lot of Christians on the public dole, e.g., WELFARE, I'd say we DO have a lot of beggars in the church, at least in THAT sense of the word.

More twisting here than a Chubby Checker tribute! "Christians," should work if able [see II Thess.....but put your typical eraser down when you do]], if not able, then this would be an anomaly...which NEVER sets the precedent for the normative situations. Man...you guys are unbelievably ignorant of proper academia, which, of course, is why you believe the way you do!

Chubby Checker? Man, you are aging yourself there.
Believers world-wide that don't work are an anomaly? There you again speaking with an ethnocentrist viewpoint. Even Christians working for $2.50/hour would need assistance. Even welfare recipients work to supplement income to be able to live. So what on earth are you talking about? Someone call Jeffrey back!

rdp · #**1033** 11-01-2010, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Socialite

Actually, her statement was NOT an ad hominem. It was a point she makes, and proceeds from there to explain WHY she believes your point was "not making sense." How is that an ad hominem? Put away your glossary! lol

Then grab your "glossary"! Yes, she was making an ad hominem. But, running out of time to explin....gotta' teach a Bible study tonight, in which I'll be demonstrating your logical fallacies to the many there.

Socialite · #**1034** 11-01-2010, 02:07 PM

Quote:

I assure you that I have known of Christians who went hungry. It only takes a minuscule amount of research to find cases of Christians over the centuries who have not only been without food, but without shelter and other basic necessities. Some have even lost their lives.

I simply quote from Psalms....& now you've relegated the quotation to me asserting that Christians have never went hungry????? Wow, what theological leap-frog! Since you assume that I've stated this, surely you should have no problem validating your assumption thru a cut & paste...right? So, here's your chance:___________? Those pesky unfillable blanks !

You initiated the leap-frog, silly! You attempted to reason that the man "coming in" MUST HAVE BEEN a sinner by quoting from the Psalms to say believers aren't ever poor beggars. Get it right. You're not keeping up today.

rdp · #**1035** 11-01-2010, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Socialite

You've done nothing to defend your position on why you think the word should be one who begs and not just one who is poor and in need. Talk about ad hominems! Look up the word "hypocrisy."

Yea...what was I thinking referencing some of the most authoritative lexicons in existence!

Socialite · #**1036** 11-01-2010, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdp

On brother, then according to this verse, can we be decked in jewels, including nose rings & teach others about modesty????????

Too funny................

That's your only reply to that Scripture? Your fear of nose rings that you obsess over?

Socialite · #**1037** 11-01-2010, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I comprehend that there's a distinction. My question is: Since the same word is used for "poor" saints in Romans as is used for "poor" man in James, which definition do you prefer. Was the man in James a "beggar" while the saints in Romans were only "poor?"

Maybe I did misunderstand you somewhere; I thought that earlier on the thread you were saying the poor man in James was not a Christian because there aren't Christians who are beggars. e.g., you were using that point to prove he was actually "vile/wicked" and not just "poor." If that's what you stated, then doesn't that mean you also interpret the word to mean "beggar?" And if you interpret it to mean that in James, then why not in Romans as well?

He thinks it somehow helps his argument, so that's what informs him which choosing which usage of the word. Of course, the translators screwed this one up.

Second bold: that's exactly what he said

You start wading in deep water when you get "stretchy" with the facts.

rdp · #**1038** 11-01-2010, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Socialite

Chubby Checker? Man, you are aging yourself there.
Believers world-wide that don't work are an anomaly? There you again speaking with an ethnocentrist viewpoint. Even Christians working for $2.50/hour would need assistance. Even welfare recipients work to supplement income to be able to live. So what on earth are you talking about? Someone call Jeffrey back!

Ahhh....then they wouldn't be classified as "beggars" would they

! Tks. for the help....yes, you need to call someone to help you out, but I've never been to impressed w/ ol' Jeffrey either [since he says it's okay for a preacher to be decked out in jewelry w/ shorts & tank top!]........tooooooooooo hilarious!

rdp · #**1039** 11-01-2010, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Socialite

You initiated the leap-frog, silly! You attempted to reason that the man "coming in" MUST HAVE BEEN a sinner by quoting from the Psalms to say believers aren't ever poor beggars. Get it right. You're not keeping up today.

Oh....I'm doing just fine! Both were depicted as "coming in".....not "already in"....looks to me like you're the one who needs to "keep up!"

Socialite · #**1040** 11-01-2010, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdp

We're not talking about the world in general now are we? What a subtle shift, which you'll not pass off on me. We're discussing Christians as a whole. I certainly understand that there are some Christians who live in poverty [such as the Messiah even], but we're talking about Christian beggars. Yes, you need lessons in logical fallacies.

The only logical fallacy here is the obnoxious throwing around of logical phrases you do in each post.

Christians as a whole, consist of nations as a whole. The largest Christian communities exist in Africa, South Korea, etc. Of course, maybe the Scriptures mean "people who speak in tongues, stop cutting their hair, don't wear make-up and wear bhurka's" won't beg

Of course this is all so silly since the language in Psalms is not literal, but quite poetic. The meaning we can get is more "I've never seen a believer abandoned" -- and the next part is actually about his "seed"! Another poetic phrase that would make sense to a Hebrew audience, the dignity and pride of generations, etc. Either way, the man "not begging for bread" is the seed of the righteous person in Psalm 37. If you want to apply a literal sponge on a genre of literature that is not literal, you have just made this whole situation a lot more complex... as always