This is Pathetic

[desmalia]

Very well said.

Thanks, brother.

One closing thorught from me. I really appreciate that you took a stand here, and I wanted to let you know that I support you in it. However, I've had enough of debating with postmodernism in this forum. So I am unsubscribing from the thread now. I'm just finding there are so many more important and more useful things I can be doing with my time.

Blessings to you.

des

 

[davedjy]

Twisting Scripture or ignoring it all together for the sake of following one's own will is not exactly holy or honouring to God now is it?

It's one thing to sin, know you're sinning, and have a struggle with it. It's quite another to create your own doctrine to support your own ideas or behaviour. Unfortunately that is what goes on around here quite a bit.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that debate is a bad thing or that people shouldn't be allowed to do it. It's just frustrating to see such a growing number of people denying God's word, or claiming His truth is subjective and "open to personal interpretation". God's truth is perfect, objective, and unchanging, no matter how we feel about it. Certainly there are some minor issues that we can debate and discuss, and disagree on (such as YEC vs. OEC, or OSAS, etc.). But these are not central to the faith and not serious enough to draw people from the faith or encourage ongoing sin. Sexual sin is a huge, huge, huge problem in our society and the church today. We cannot afford to be wishy-washy on this issue.

We're talking about people accepting, condoning, defending, and even encouraging ongoing sin within the body of Christ. I'm sorry but that is not Love as defined in the Bible. We are not to condemn each other to hell, but we are supposed to hold each other accountable. That is part of the sanctification process that is basic to every Christian.

Not all agree with your beliefs, and each side can see something as a "twisting of Scripture". I also see a lot of the Fundamentalists using the Bible to bash people on the head. There are also a group of nice Fundamentalists here, but they are rarer to find.

 

[Jedi]

Then I am doing what the Bible says to do...

19 My brothers, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring him back, 20 remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of his way will save him from death and cover over a multitude of sins.
James 5:19-20


5 Better is open rebuke than hidden love. 6 Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses.

And they could just as well say the same thing and apply those verses to you. This does not, however, mean that either party must be disagreeing because they want to indulge in sin.

 

[Romanseight2005]

Rev 2:20-26

20 Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols.

21 And I gave her space to repent of her fornication; and she repented not.

22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.

23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.

24 But unto you I say, and unto the rest in Thyatira, as many as have not this doctrine, and which have not known the depths of Satan , as they speak; I will put upon you none other burden.

25 But that which ye have already hold fast till I come.

26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:
KJV

 

[ebia]

Jesus said to deny yourself and take up your cross...

Since this wasn't a figure of speach when he said this (as it was before his crucifixion) I presume the fundamentalists take this as a literal instruction to be crucified in the traditional Roman manner. Either that or a literal instruction to walk around carrying half a tree.

 

[DMagoh]

Since this wasn't a figure of speach when he said this (as it was before his crucifixion) I presume the literalists take this as a literal instruction to be crucified in the traditional Roman manner. Either that or a literal instruction to walk around carrying half a tree.

I hope you dont think that Jesus literally rose from the grave. That's ridiculous. Of course that means there's no salvation either.

It's amazing how liberals can pick and choose what they choose to believe out of God's Holy Word. You'll take that part about eternal life, but that part about following Jesus...

 

[tulc]

It's amazing how liberals can pick and choose what they choose to believe out of God's Holy Word. You'll take that part about eternal life, but that part about following Jesus...

...so you do believe we have to be crucified and carry a cross around? Or do you choose to believe that it's symbolic?
tulc(picking and choosing is being human, denying doing so is also)

 

[DMagoh]

...so you do believe we have to be crucified and carry a cross around? Or do you choose to believe that it's symbolic?
tulc(picking and choosing is being human, denying doing so is also)

You are trying to play on words and you know it's not the same thing. You KNOW Jesus's words were symbolic and meant symbolically. Even the Average Joe would know this.

However, words like these...

In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. Romans 1:27

you KNOW there's nothing symbolic about it. You just choose not to believe it.

I know you think you are clever, but Satan was clever in the Garden when he was deceiving Eve, so I wouldnt be particularly proud of that fact.

 

[ebia]

I hope you dont think that Jesus literally rose from the grave. That's ridiculous. Of course that means there's no salvation either.

It's amazing how liberals can pick and choose what they choose to believe out of God's Holy Word. You'll take that part about eternal life, but that part about following Jesus...

I presume from your reponse that you do take the quote in question literally, so can I ask whether you are currently carrying a tree or nailed to one?

Or did you completely miss my point?

 

[ebia]

You are trying to play on words and you know it's not the same thing. You KNOW Jesus's words were symbolic and meant symbolically. Even the Average Joe would know this.

Only because the average Joe and most Christians have forgotten the fact that when Jesus said those words they weren't a figure of speach. At the time he said it (before his crucifixion) the figure of speach we assume would make no sense. We've turned it into a post-easter figure of speach and then read that back into scripture. That's a (rather dodgy) assumption - as much a case of "picking-and-choosing" as much as anything else.

I know you think you are clever, but Satan was clever in the Garden when he was deceiving Eve, so I wouldnt be particularly proud of that fact.

By this logic I hope Jesus was ashamed of his clever responses.

 

[DMagoh]

I presume from your reponse that you do take the quote in question literally, so can I ask whether you are currently carrying a tree or nailed to one?

Or did you completely miss my point?

Did you ignore post #48?

 

[ebia]

Did you ignore post #48?

No

 

[Romanseight2005]

There are 4 rules for interpreting scripture.
1. All biblical interpretations must glorify Christ.
2. All scripture must be confirmed by other scriptures.
3. It must testify with the Holy Spirit within you.
4. It will eventually be manifested in the flesh.

 

[Jedi]

You are trying to play on words and you know it's not the same thing. You KNOW Jesus's words were symbolic and meant symbolically. Even the Average Joe would know this.

Forgive me if I don't form my understanding of scripture around what the "average Jo" thinks. I've found the average Jo knows a lot less about biblical languages, hermeneutics, philosophy, and theology than I do. After all, I do have a degree in theology. The average Jo does not.

you KNOW there's nothing symbolic about it. You just choose not to believe it.

You're assuming a false dichotamy here, though: it's either symbolic or your interpretation. As I explained to you earlier, about this very passage you keep referencing no less, the waters aren't quite so clear as you'd like to think. The context in this instance is enough to muddy the waters. It's not symbolism here that's the issue - it's context, history, culture, and examining the principle of what's being said.

 

[Dannager]

There are 4 rules for interpreting scripture.
1. All biblical interpretations must glorify Christ.
2. All scripture must be confirmed by other scriptures.
3. It must testify with the Holy Spirit within you.
4. It will eventually be manifested in the flesh.

No, see, I'm pretty sure those aren't actual rules at all.

 

[ContentInHim]

What I wanna know is how DMagoh, et al., intend to "turn a sinner from the error of his way" if they want to disallow discussion -- or at the very least, whine about people discussing stuff.

[16] All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, [17] so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

This tells me that the scriptures are effective in bringing a person to conviction.

 

[ContentInHim]

Really? Then why make us able to reason? He could have made us like the rocks or all the plants and animals but He didn't. I'm reminded of a quote:

tulc(just a thought)

Well, God did not formulate the rules of the universe based on what we were going to think about them. Rather he based them on what was good for us. When we accept that he has our best interests at heart, as does any good parent, and we accept that his rules are for our benefit, life becomes a whole lot simpler. And simpler does not mean boring just because we have left our sin behind!

 

[ContentInHim]

No, see, I'm pretty sure those aren't actual rules at all.

And exactly what do you believe the rules of interpretation are?

I believe that RomansEight hit the nail on the head.

 

[IamRedeemed]

See, that's where apparently the confusion sets in. They are not disagreeing with those who repeat the Word of God, they are disagreeing with God Himself, the One they claim to love and follow who is the One who Spoke the Word that is being repeated. The same God who will judge according to the same Word in which He spoke and it was written down that they are disagreeing with.

And yes, they do have the right to be deceived or to deceive themselves and do have the right to the great surprise they will receive, as long as they continue to be deceived, when Jesus tells them to depart from Him as they are workers of iniquity and He never knew them. Matthew 7:23
"And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."

Yes, they do have that right.

They also have the right to change their course and become doers of the Word and not hearers only.

James 1:22
But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.

OK, but what do you suggest by way of alternative? That they're not allowed to disagree with you? The problem is that every side in every debate thinks they already know the truth, and that the other side should come to know that truth.

 

[IamRedeemed]

Actually, I don't think it is the parts of the Bible that are "unclear" that present a problem for most people who want to remain in their sin.

Forgive me if I don't form my understanding of scripture around what the "average Jo" thinks. I've found the average Jo knows a lot less about biblical languages, hermeneutics, philosophy, and theology than I do. After all, I do have a degree in theology. The average Jo does not.



You're assuming a false dichotamy here, though: it's either symbolic or your interpretation. As I explained to you earlier, about this very passage you keep referencing no less, the waters aren't quite so clear as you'd like to think. The context in this instance is enough to muddy the waters. It's not symbolism here that's the issue - it's context, history, culture, and examining the principle of what's being said.