Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
UberLutheran said:I would be more inclined to take fundamentalists and evangelicals seriously if they actually practiced the love and tolerance they preach -- instead of the phony and hypocritical "love the sinner and hate the sin" which apparently has given them license to commit the atrocities in Al Gharib Prison (or support the people who committed the atrocities).
Frankly, I don't see many Wiccans doing these kinds of things to people (or supporting the actions of those who do these things).
"By their works you will know them." (Matthew 7:16).
Volos said:
so you are the judge of who is and who is not a true Christian?
Whitehorse said:Ohhhhhh...you're an arminian..Lutheran? That's unusual. Anyway, what was wrong with what I said? Or, is this a diversion from the actual debate?
transientlife said:I still don't get the connection you're making between some of the terminology, namely equating courtesy with kinship/placating/affirmation, and on a long shot - the denial of Christianity.
It seems as if you regard nonChristians as seeking out affirmation from others that their beliefs are ok, and so on. In my experience, I haven't run into many atheists or pagans who are looking for affirmation.
My mission is not to placate pagans, fellow Christians [of varying degrees], atheists or anyone else, it is to treat everyone with courtesy and how I expect to be treated, regardless of faith. My Christian doctrine just seems a tad more liberal than yours, not nonexistent.
Thanks so much for the continual denouncements.
Might I add here [again, and like I say in nearly EVERY post] that you can tell a pagan - or whoever the nonChristian is - that they are wrong, they are 'lost', however you want to word it.
You can lead them to Jesus/God, but you can't make them believe. Just as someone could introduce you to Allah or Buddha, doesn't mean you will necessarily convert in a miraculous change of heart.
They could tell you that you were lost and hellbound (which, I'm fairly certain in according to Islam, we are) and they'd probably get the same response from you as you would from them with such a proclamation.
Some people will never believe - and sure it's a sad thing to us Christians, however it is also the reality of the world - but you can't make them convert.
It's great to talk to people about Christianity, I have no problem with that. All we Christians can do is try , but we can't force it upon the unwilling heart. In the end I think people ultimately have to come to God of their own volition. We can give them the directions on how to get there, but we can't walk the path for them.
With this in mind... since you seem equate common human courtesy with placating/kinship/promoting, etc. how should we Christians treat/interact with those of differing beliefs, especially those who are devout in their particular faith and aren't interested in converting?
Ok, I don't believe I ever said that Jesus wasn't Savior and Lord, for one thing. I don't profess to know THE TRUTH - because I don't think we will know all of THE TRUTH...ever...until after death -
and I don't plan on leading anyone anywhere proclaiming I know all there is to know about THE TRUTH. Jesus is Lord and Savior - he died on the cross for all of our sins, that's one truth I'm completely certain of. I can introduce them to Christianity, but it should be upon them to be active in learning about it, and not let someone else spoonfeed everything to them - which would be a foolish undertaking in some respects. As far as the accountability, refer to above response.
and for sake of the 'game'Ezekiel 33:9 states "Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul."
So (as I read the passage) even God seems to recognize his followers can only do so much to bring people to him.
I'm not fighting against any spokesperson, I'm expressing my faith as how I've interpreted it so far in my life. By the way, Romans 14 is a very interesting chapter.
so you are admitting you have set yoruself up as the judge of who is and who is not a true Christian.Whitehorse said:Let's play Jeopardy! Whitehorse will refer to this authority when answering this question.
Deet, deet, deet, deet, deet, deet, deeeeeee, Deet deet deet deet deeee da dee da deeda;
Deet, deet, deet, deet, deet, deet, deeeeeee, Deet! Da deet! deet! deet! deet! deet! Bwa Bwa!
I dont know of anyone who does this.Whitehorse said:Well, the Bible is clear on how God feels about man making his own gods and worship them, rather than their Creator.
As Christians, we are called to affirm God's truth. I don't know of any Christians who are judging these people, but are giving them the truth. If our hearts are with the gospel, we know it and affirm it and teach and so on. I don't see this; I see more working to make pagans feel comfortable in something that will bring enmity between them and God. That's more what I'm getting at.
The Goddess wishes us to find our own path and allow others the privilege of honoring the Divine in their own way.Whether or not they seek affirmation, I'm looking for support of truth. God wants us to affirm Him and His word.
It's scripture. It's about what God says. So it's not my doctrine or yours, but what God says that counts.
its the writings of men who died along time ago. It has only the authority you believe it has, no more.I use scripture as my authority. Let me ask you this: what is *your* authority? If you're a Christian, yours has to be the Bible, too.
again to judge those who do not agree.And so we must stand for what we stand for. And I think that if anyone is going to profess Christ, it really is important to know what God requires of us, and get to know the Bible really well. It takes time; I know that. But when we find ourselves rebuking people for using the word and then agreeing constantly with those who don't worship the Lord on the other hand, I think we need to take a step back and find out what happened.
When do you plan to begin to study debate?And I think it starts with that-knowing God's will. And understanding debate tactics.
Explain why suggesting someone actually defend claims made in debate is telling you how to debate.Remember, they're trying to win a debate. That is their objective. So w don't give in to their clever attempts to tell us how to debate. They want us to lose, remember? So we simply smile and go on doing our job.
I'm not trying to make any pagans "feel comfortable" in their beliefs. What's wrong with lending an ear and listening to them and their concerns?Whitehorse said:I don't see this; I see more working to make pagans feel comfortable in something that will bring enmity between them and God. That's more what I'm getting at.
There's nothing wrong with affirming Him and his Word...when it is done with courtesy.Whether or not they seek affirmation, I'm looking for support of truth. God wants us to affirm Him and His word.
Oh no! Not this again! And we were starting to make progress!It's scripture. It's about what God says. So it's not my doctrine or yours, but what God says that counts. I use scripture as my authority. Let me ask you this: what is *your* authority? If you're a Christian, yours has to be the Bible, too.
Once again, nothing wrong with proclaiming the truth -- when done with tact, love and courtesy.The Christian's job is to do what he/she has been called to do. We are called to make the truth known, and work God's fields. This is our purpose. Everything else we do flows from this purpose.
I think many of the threads on here are redundant and many issues addressed over and over and over again. I've made and defended my points numerous times, reworded it to try for better understanding and clarity. So why not once more for the heck of it?I realize the thread is a long one, but it might be worth it to go and look over the posts anway; these issues were already adressed.
Well I think some Christians misunderstand that verse.That's the Holy Spirit's job. We aren't called to convert; we are called to give the truth. As it is written:
Romans 10:1410:14How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?
Don't you enjoy the intellectual challenge as well?Yes, exactly. And, they're here at a Christian forum debating about it. So I think they enjoy the intellectual challenge, and so we go to work, doing what God has called us to do.
How do you expect to keep them 'interested' if you don't maintain some courtesy?Well, this is a very good question. But it goes deeper than human courtesy. Because it's important to remember, they are on our turf, and they do want to debate. So that's what we do. This implies their interest.
And I don't see how being tolerant of other viewpoints is necessarily not standing for what you stand for.And so we must stand for what we stand for.
I don't see much 'constant agreement' here...otherwise there wouldn't be much of a debate. I think mostly it's common points that are brought to recognition. I'm not a sycophant, but I won't deny it when I can empathize or sympathize with something they are saying, again, regardless of what God they believe in - if they believe in God.But we find ourselves rebuking people for using the word and then agreeing constantly with those who don't worship the Lord on the other hand, I think we need to take a step back and find out what happened.
If we are secure in our faith, believe what we believe, I don't see how the intellectual challenge is that dangerous. I'm also not quite as "paranoid"...I don't think they are trying to separate us from the truth (at least not most of the nonchristians). Some of them truly seem to be trying to understand.And I think it starts with that-knowing God's will. And understanding debate tactics. None of their complaints about our using scripture are benign. There's a reason they're doing that. As you debate more you'll see it more clearly. Their objective isn't to stop hearing about Christ, because if that were the case, they wouldn't be here. They're trying to separate Christians from using the truth, because it simply can't be defeated.Remember, they're trying to win a debate. That is their objective. So w don't give in to their clever attempts to tell us how to debate. They want us to lose, remember? So we simply smile and go on doing our job.
Did I say anything about it not being the truth? I think you reallyWell, then we have a problem here. This needs to be worked out. The Bible is the truth, by virtue of the fact that it is God's word. And we have Christ's testimony in this word. Everything you know about Christ, you know from scripture. It's one of the most basic doctrines of Christianity.
Thanks for the offer, but I'm not struggling.But if you struggle with faith sometimes, that's a normal part of the process of Christian growth. The first thing to do is get into the word more. And I can mention some good resources if you like.
Well, I disagree, but I see your point. I'm referring to blind obedience and following of a pastor or someone else who claims to be the one to follow. You know what I mean? I think at some point, we have to be responsible for learning about our faith and find out for ourselves and see how God speaks to us individually.Well if you know Jesus is the Christ, then you can rest in the truth of the rest of His testimony. Yes, we do need to spoonfeed if that is necessary.
Prooftexts: 2 Timothy 3:16-17, Also 1 Corinthians 3:2:
Well gee, thanks.Very good-you looked to the word.
I think some take the guidance and run with it, as well as go beyond the call to stop. There's nothing wrong with teaching, when the person is willing.And the Holy Spirit will guide each of us as to what to say and when to stop. They are willing to discuss, so we meet that wish for them.
In that passage he's talking about judging fellow Christians. Believe it or not! He uses the example of clean/unclean foods primarily. I interpreted it as meaning to not bicker over trivial things regarding the faith (such as practices like kosher/unkosher food) and to only interfere when the other is truly in unknowing harm.Again, this is great! You're looking to the word. Now let's take a look at that passage and see what it is refering to. Scripture is occasional. That means there is an occasion to which each part was written, and Romans 14 is no exception. What is the context? What was Paul addressing when he talked about the weak and strong? What was he trying solve and how?
Volos said:so you are admitting you have set yoruself up as the judge of who is and who is not a true Christian.
transientlife said:We are to live in peace with others (Romans 12: 14-17)...
My thinking is...
Is is possible to have peace without tolerance? Doubtful to a firm 'no'.
So logically, to maintain peace, we must have some level of tolerance.
Tolerance does not mean acceptance and/or condoning of something you disagree with (in this case, different beliefs). Which some people seem to mistake it for meaning.
Tolerance is recognizing there ARE different beliefs and that you must work out some way to get along with those different beliefs, whether you approve of them or not.
From what I have observed, too many people refuse to exercise tolerance, due to various reasons. But we can't complain about the lack of peace if we aren't willing to compromise - to recognize our differences, go above them and be tolerant of each other. No need to make the world feel smaller than it already is.
Just some more of my 2cents.
transientlife said:If we are secure in our faith, believe what we believe, I don't see how the intellectual challenge is that dangerous. I'm also not quite as "paranoid"...I don't think they are trying to separate us from the truth (at least not most of the nonchristians). Some of them truly seem to be trying to understand.
I can only really speak for myself on the idea of winning or losing the debate...but I am not competitive. My desire in coming here is to put in my 2cents about a topic as well as to examine the 2cents of others as well, not to "win".
Did I say anything about it not being the truth? I think you really
misunderstood what I said. I'm sure you've heard the term "mysteries of the bible"...I meant that we will learn the whole truth (of the world, etc.) upon death. In particular to what I am certain to be true, I meant that many parts of the Bible can be interpreted differently, many things questioned, etc.
Well, I disagree, but I see your point. I'm referring to blind obedience and following of a pastor or someone else who claims to be the one to follow. You know what I mean? I think at some point, we have to be responsible for learning about our faith and find out for ourselves and see how God speaks to us individually.
Well gee, thanks.But I've looked to the word before, I just hesitate to quote it because enough people quote enough scripture on here to make up for the lack of mine.
I think some take the guidance and run with it, as well as go beyond the call to stop. There's nothing wrong with teaching, when the person is willing.
In that passage he's talking about judging fellow Christians. Believe it or not! He uses the example of clean/unclean foods primarily. I interpreted it as meaning to not bicker over trivial things regarding the faith (such as practices like kosher/unkosher food) and to only interfere when the other is truly in unknowing harm.
transientlife said:Friendship and tolerance need not always go hand in hand, either. In other thought, couldn't that verse - "friends of the world"- actually be referring to worldly/secular people and not 'friendship' as we know it? Since you purport that our definition of love is not the same as the biblical definition, I mean.
transientlife said:Well I think some Christians misunderstand that verse.
And I don't see how being tolerant of other viewpoints is necessarily not standing for what you stand for.
I don't see much 'constant agreement' here...otherwise there wouldn't be much of a debate. I think mostly it's common points that are brought to recognition. I'm not a sycophant, but I won't deny it when I can empathize or sympathize with something they are saying, again, regardless of what God they believe in - if they believe in God.
Ok, then how about the term hyper-sensitive? Meaning I do not take up arms as soon as someone decides to disagree with what I believe. Let me hear their story, let them hear mine, then I'll decide how to react.Whitehorse said:Paranoia? Or just simple understanding of human nature and a lot of experience with debate?
With pagans, with lutherans, with catholics, with methodists, with humanists, with atheists, with agnostics, with conservative Christians, with moderates, with liberals, with buddhists, with taoists, with hindus, with muslims...what's the point? Ok, let me rephrase then. I'm not here to WIN debates, I am simply here for the sake of debating - in which I will put my 2cents and receive others' 2cents.Friend, you're in a *debate* forum. With pagans. At a Christian forum.
Finally! You're getting into my brain! Scary place, isn't it?Agreed that we shouldn't follow blindly some individual. We need the authority of God Himself, which is His word in scripture.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?