![”Hosted](http://webpages.charter.net/collison/pics/10.jpg";)
You have been pinged because this may be of interest to the Sabbatarian/Messianic community. Freepmail DouglasKC if you want on or off this list. Add Me Please Remove Me Please
Posted on 05/15/2009 7:40:36 PM PDT by Chris DeWeese
‘Having our cake and eating it, too’ is a mindset that all of us fall into from time to time, albeit in differing degrees.
Recently a U.S. Senator discovered that the political party he had been a member of for over 40 years had finally started showing signs that support for him was over. The polls were showing that his challenger in the upcoming primary was going to unseat him and this Senator decided that loyalty to his constituents and his party was secondary to his power. Rather than retire with dignity, this Senator decided to change sides and join the opposition party. Since he was doing the opposition party a huge service by furthering their majority, in his twisted mind, he was going to be entitled to a host of luxuries and seniority since he has been in the Senate for so long. He thought he was going to be a hero. Once he made the switch, burnt the bridge, and the opposition got what it needed from him, they threw him away like an old piece of cheese in the back of the refrigerator. This Senator thought he was going to have his cake and eat it, too.
There’s a pretty easy parallel to make with the scriptures and the episode above with the Senator:
Satan was trying to get Jesus to switch parties. And what do you think would have happened to Jesus had he made the switch? Do you think Satan, having gotten what he wanted, would have really given Jesus all those kingdoms?
So how does God like the idea of His followers trying to having their cake and eating it, too? Turns out, not one bit.
This is a huge verse. Despite God telling Israel over and over not to mix in worship of false gods with worship of Him, they decided to do it anyhow. The allure was just too much. The had to have their cake and eat it, too.
“But, Chris, how does this apply to Christians? We’re under the New Covenant, we’re not bound by those old rules, right”, asks the reader. While there was a change in the law due to a change in the priesthood, this rule remains - without a doubt.
Baal and Belial are the same false god. The principle is the same, which is why Paul is citing it. We are NOT allowed to adopt pagan practices into the worship of the One True God. The first century Christians did not adopt the practices of their converts, but quite the opposite happened. Converts ceased their pagan ways and became worshippers of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. As Paul is alluding to above, Belial and the worship of him or any other false god has absolutely no place in Christianity. We are not permitted to have our cake and eat it, too.
You have been pinged because this may be of interest to the Sabbatarian/Messianic community. Freepmail DouglasKC if you want on or off this list. Add Me Please Remove Me Please
Doug, I think I botched my first try at using your list.
lol...I got you covered newb...and nice little article too...
You have been pinged because this may be of interest
to the Sabbatarian/Messianic community. Freepmail
DouglasKC if you want on or off this list.
Here is a scripture that a fellow Freeper pointed out recently when we were discussing the speed of the power grab since Jan.20th.
Revelation 12:12
“Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! For the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.”
This one is for keeping on the straight and narrow, so we are in the wheat and not the chaff when our time on Earth is over:
Psalms 119:1-2
“Blessed are the undefiled in the Way, who walk in the law of The Lord. Blessed are they that keep His testimonies, and that seek him with the whole heart.”
I know that Arlen Spector was originally a dem, then became repub and then back to dem, to meet his own selfish needs. Still, I am disgusted how he cheated those who voted for him as a repub, only to have him change sides later. Yes, he voted in a non-conservative way in any case, but it is dishonest to switch party affiliation during an elected term.
When I heard of his switch, the first thing that came to mind was how he is rather aged, and will meet his Maker soon. So how stupid was it of him to join the party of death? He now stands with those who are OK with the slaughter of innocent children of God. He has not considered that I suppose. He will have to consider it sooner or later though.
What he did was so selfish. So sinful and self centered. I am a sinner as are we all. Mr.Spector has commited a grave sin by supporting the party of death. The power hungry politicians cannot see beyond their addiction to that power. They’ll do anything to be powerful on Earth.
Here’s another one, about the importance of being a righteous person.
Ecclesiastes 7:1
“A good name is better than precious ointment.”
I found that one when my youngest Uncle died 2 years ago. He did have a good name. He was faithful to the end.
Mr.Specter has sullied his name. He voted wrong many times, but his defection to the other side is so offensive it looms over the other things he did.
Blessings on you and yours. Stern, D. H. (1989). Jewish New Testament : Excellent !
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
Acts 15:
21 For from the earliest times, Moshe has had in every city those
who proclaim him, with his words being read in the synagogues every Shabbat.”
Can’t anyone use this expression correctly? Of course you can “HAVE your cake, and EAT it” - there’s no contradiction of reality in that phrasing, first having cake, and then eating it. In fact, one must first have a cake to eat it. Poof - I had it, now the cake has joined the choir invisible.
The correct phrase is “You can’t EAT your cake and HAVE it” - that is expressing the contradiction of reality, the impossibility of first eating the cake and then STILL having it, which is the meaning that is clearly intended to be conveyed by people who use the corrupted phrase without thinking.
Sheesh.
The word “and” makes both sides of the equation equal. If you cannot eat your cake and have it, too then you can’t have your cake and eat it, too uh, also. Either you have it or you eat it, you cannot do both. Sheesh, indeed :D
LOL - just what I love, a juicy semantic hoedown on a quiet Saturday afternoon! :-)
So ““and” makes both sides of the equation equal?” Not under all conditions, since “have” can be read to express either temporal simultaneity or sequential actions; only the correct phrasing retains its meaning under both conditions, hence is not subject to misinterpretation. Only if the incorrect phrase is read to exclude sequential actions, and privilege simultaneity, can it make any sense at all.
The corruption of the original quote (the phrase is, after all, a literary quote, not some generic folk saying) is: “Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?” Thus, its vulgar reversal is incorrect both historically and logically. Just because most people use the quote erroneusly does not make their usage correct - at least, to the prescriptive lexicographer.
I guess I’ll double that ‘sheesh,’ and raise you a pshaw. :-P
“Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?”
The word have there appears to mean, in context:
have |hav| verb ( has |haz; (h)əz|; past had |had; (h)əd|) [ trans. ] 1 (also have got) possess, own, or hold : he had a new car and a boat | have you got a job yet? | I don't have that much money on me | he's got the equipment with him. • possess or be provided with (a quality, characteristic, or feature) : the ham had a sweet, smoky flavor | she's got blue eyes | the house has gas heat.
Which means to me that you cannot possess your cake and consume it, which is the meaning of my blog entry and the meaning of the expression, regardless of the order.
As far as the other big words you used, I'm lost. I have no idea how the ordering of possession and consumption can possibly alter the meaning of "you cannot have your cake and eat it, too". If you have it, you get hungry. If you eat it, you no longer have it. Right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.