Society and Culture
Sub-Categories: Animal Welfare | Disability Resources | Ethnicity | Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual | Genealogy | History | Labor | Law | Organizations | Personal Pages | Politics | Religion | YouthResources for regional Alabama wedding information including marriage license laws, vendor listings and guides to cities within the state.
Alabama BirthlinkA resource for adoptees and birthparents who are searching in Alabama.
AlabamaChatA chat site for residents of the state. Free registration for several rooms.
Gateway Family and Child ServicesA non-profit agency providing cooperative and comprehensive social services to at-risk families and youth.
Newcomers Club Directory: AlabamaDirectory of social organizations, events, interest groups and children's activities.
Prison HopeA site designed to share hope and comfort to inmates, their friends and family. We offer free Bible correspondence courses for Alabama inmates.
Program For Rural Services and ResearchWorks with rural communities to identify and address local, regional, and statewide issues of concern to those communities in the areas of community/economic development, education, health, and cultural documentation.
Refugee Resettlement ProgramOperated by Catholic Social Services of Mobile, Alabama. Site covers activities and information relevant to refugee resettlement in the state of Alabama.
Refugee Ressettlement ProgramOperated by Catholic Social Services. Site covers activities and information relevant to refugee resettlement in the state.
Weddings AlabamaA guide for finding wedding and party professionals and services. Includes wedding tips and links.
basicallyblues wrote:
> lsend... wrote:
>
> >Your "god" has no basis for "love."
>
> MY God- the very same God Jesus Christ prayed to and worshipped-
YHWH-
> showed his love by sending his only-begotten Son as a ransom
sacrifice.
> That's a fine basis.
>
You are simply out of league. You do not understand the issue being
debated.
>
> >That your god is a singularity, he had no one to love
> >in eternity past and was therefore necessitated to create someone to
> >love.
>
> God existed before creation. So...your point?
>
Ibid.
>
> God has no needs. He created out of love- not need. His first
creation
> (the archangel Michael who later became Jesus)
>
"Chapter and verse please," to quote a previous JfW poster.
>
> was his first act of love.
>
Then how can you have his very nature be "love?" You yourself have
just admitted to it being inexpressible until creation. Therefore you
have done exactly as I have already submitted. You have necessitated
creation which in turn removes any thought of your god being
self-sufficient. He is no longer God, but merely god.
Again, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. You have not studied
such things. You have not pursued the deeper things -your
presuppositions and their natural children.
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))
Our new Scripture memory program is now on the web. It is like nothing
you have seen before! Check it out!
www.figure8scripturememory.com
((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))
It seems obvious that the real reason you don’t want to explain the usage
of HN, its definition and its rules esp. in Mattew 12:40 is because the
usage in this text conflicts with your explanation of how an imperfect
tense really affects the sentence esp in the phrase “In the beginning was
the Word”. Thus, the implication that you give is without valid proof.
Why don’t you review Matthew 12:40 and see the usage of HN in that text?
Did you notice that HN didn’t show any pre- occurrence of Jonah in the
belly of the fish? As the fact shows, Jonah’s being in the belly of the
fish, has a beginning, with a start and continued for three days. No
implication of being in the belly of the fish before or after the three
days. Your “force of imperfect tense” explanation in John 1:1 is in fact
unconvincing and not supported