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.
seebs said:Thus, I reject all the trappings and superstitions often mistaken for salvation. I was not saved by a book of words; I was saved by the Living Word. I will not trade that for thousands of years of human interpretations.
.
Ramble on Sister! One of my all time favorite posts here on CF.Warning....rambling ahead:
I have to say something here, not only because it's important to me, but because it may be to someone else. Sometimes us Christians see someone who we feel is being disobedient to the God we love. We feel they are taking advantage of His mercy, laughing in the face of the One who means everything to us. We get angry, we stay that way. But when He looks at those people.......He remembers authorizing their existence. He remembers creating them in their mother's womb, listening for their first cry, watching their first step, pushing their first tooth through. He remembers courting them. With sunsets, soft mushy springtime grass, and the smell of rain. He can be shameless in His pursuit of us....using loving friends, funny jokes, and sexual pleasure with our husbands. He haunts us and stalks us and flirts with us.....until we KNOW that no matter what we do, it doesn't take away that longing. We can't drink enough marguaritas or have enough [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] or stockpile enough knowledge or gather enough friends, to ever take away that longing we have. It's a longing for Him.
When people look at the Bible as a rule book, or instruction manual, they are missing the best part. THEY are the one's editing. There are rules, yes. But they are all about love for us. There is a thread woven throughout all the law, history, poetry, and prophesy......and the thread is love. Love culminating in Him coming incognito to rescue us, (after we were so dang stubborn time after time after time)......and He's coming back dressed to go. He's coming back to claim His beloved. His beloved is us. And His beloved is them.
Bigot: A Conservative winning an argument with a liberal.Karl - Liberal Backslider said:When the participants are consenting adults, where is the "violation"?
Your prejudice is showing, I fear.
I don't wish to throw stones at Karl, just the stuff that you argue to be acceptable to God with ZERO biblical support, and not only that, but a massive biblical argument to the contrary. I know that you are not stupid, but you'll need to figure the other part out for yourself.Karl - Liberal Backslider said:I agree with Rev Dawson. Which am I? Stupid or a liar? Come on, out with it. Seeing as you're so willing to throw stones which one are you going to throw at me?
The Bible "IS" - what I "think" is arbitrary. I'm not arguing Buck's ideas, as if I could take credit for them...I'm arguing scripture as it is read off the paper its printed on.No. Like you see it. Don't confuse "I think" with "It is".
It's called sarcasm. What sins can we get away with, and just what are the sins God is REALLY serious about?Now that is out of a horse's back passage.
Bigoted? Toward what? Christ!? Amen!! O that all the church would be bigoted toward Christ that we would exclude this trash that the world serves us; rotten doctrines, lies from the stomach of hell by which the world will be judged on that Day.That is under debate. That is unfortunately what you refuse to recognise. You think it's a sin from your reading of Scripture, therefore everyone has to agree with you or they're a liar or stupid. And you wonder why we complain that conservatives are bigoted?
If I quote Buck...that is of Buck, and open to critique - fire away. But if I quote GOD, using the contextual elements of the faith in the WORD OF GOD, then it is no longer what Buck thinks, nor is it Buck's opinion.Nonsense. It's a statement of what you think is or isn't sin. Unfortunately, you cannot help but insist everyone else must have the same opinions as you.
Nope, you are arguing Buck's interpretation of scripture so feel free to take credit for your ideas.The Bible "IS" - what I "think" is arbitrary. I'm not arguing Buck's ideas, as if I could take credit for them...I'm arguing scripture as it is read off the paper its printed on.
Lewis had a decidedly non-conservative view of scripture.Ever read C.S. Lewis? He was a bigoted conservative 'fundy' too.
I'll give the this much Mr. Buck, in my mind you are the very definition of the most of the conservatives that I have known in my past and see here at CF. You have a inflexible, single-minded devotion to your understanding of Christianity and you wield it like a baseball bat, all in the name of Jesus. Whack WhackIf I quote Buck...that is of Buck, and open to critique - fire away. But if I quote GOD, using the contextual elements of the faith in the WORD OF GOD, then it is no longer what Buck thinks, nor is it Buck's opinion.
Nope. Bigotry is insisting that other people must come to the same conclusions as you, perhaps by suggesting that if they don't they are either dishonest or stupid, for example. Fortunately, my regard for your opinions is plummeting like a barometer in a hurricane, so your attacks on me and my faith do not hurt.Buck72 said:Bigot: A Conservative winning an argument with a liberal.
Find out where I advocated free sex.Show me in scripture anywhere that refers to "consenting adults". Wait, on second thought nevermind, you cannot see that over 130 verses lay it out clearly enough that "free sex" is destestable to a Holy God.
I'll try, although I doubt you really want to be "helped out". The passage is about idolatry. Paul's argument is:Perhaps the word of God is being misconstrued by 'ol nemisis, evil conservative YEC Buck72 once again, or perhaps this part can be written off to "temple prostitues only" - good grief.
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
Rom 1:19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
Rom 1:21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
Rom 1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
Rom 1:25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
Rom 1:27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
Rom 1:28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
Rom 1:29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,
Rom 1:30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;
Rom 1:32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
Hey Karl, help me out here bro, my conservative, fundamental YEC mind, as closed at it is, cannot see past the OBVIOUS FACT that God has a problem with sin...to include homosexuality. Or does the word not apply here either?
Ah. I'm a liar. Nice to know. No. YOU are the liar. You are falsely accusing me. And you know that that contravenes on of the 10 commandments. Repentance time?Buck72 said:I don't wish to throw stones at Karl, just the stuff that you argue to be acceptable to God with ZERO biblical support, and not only that, but a massive biblical argument to the contrary. I know that you are not stupid, but you'll need to figure the other part out for yourself.
Ditto.Dawson is a liar. And will bear the guilt of propogating lies.
Now you resort to the incredibly offensive equation of homosexuality with paedophilia. Fie on you. For the billionth time - there is no comparison! Paedophilia is abusive, involving a party that cannot give informed consent. There is no comparison with homosexuality.My question for him is whether he believes God to be tolerant of pedophilia
Because we are not trying to reject the entire corpus of received Christian wisdom - which is that monogamous faithful life-long relationships are to be valued. Threesomes are not monogamous!or group sex. Why not? The arguments for gay marriage being as what is "mutually beneficial" could be carried even further to propose marriage between 3 people...what's next? What else did the architects of the faith NOT know was permissible?
False witness again.Now I know why so many "leaders" in the church were soft on pedophile priests...they saw nothing detestable about it at all.
But as I've pointed out, owing to translational and cultural difficulties it is not as simple as "reading off the paper it's printed on". Biblical scholarship is essential. Romans was not written to you, Buck, it was written to a bunch of new Christians in Rome nearly 2000 years ago. You have to bear this in mind when reading it.The Bible "IS" - what I "think" is arbitrary. I'm not arguing Buck's ideas, as if I could take credit for them...I'm arguing scripture as it is read off the paper its printed on.
He's concerned with all of them. But we are debating what is a sin, not whether God's concerned about it. You beg the question.It's called sarcasm. What sins can we get away with, and just what are the sins God is REALLY serious about?
Jesus said it came through the Holy Spirit. If it comes from the word of God anyway, why does your interpretation of it carry more weight than mine, or Rev Dawson's?Spend a moment in Romans ch. 3 and then get back to me about this "what I think it says" business. The knowledge of sin comes through the word of God - not the word of Karl, Buck, or this (ir)Reverend Dawson.
There's no point carrying on. I've said my final piece. I don't want to lead you any further into sins of false witness and judgementalism.Bigoted? Toward what? Christ!? Amen!! O that all the church would be bigoted toward Christ that we would exclude this trash that the world serves us; rotten doctrines, lies from the stomach of hell by which the world will be judged on that Day.
I've read a lot of his stuff. He seems remarkably liberal in some matters. He certainly had no time for your YECism, for example, deeming it a matter of supreme unimportance.Karl - no one needs to worry about agreeing with Buck. How many times do i have to tell you, it is not Buck in the dock here...CHRIST IS IN THE DOCK OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE WORLD. Ever read C.S. Lewis? He was a bigoted conservative 'fundy' too.
The use you put Scriptures to is your opinion. The meaning you derive from them is your opinion. The translational whims you deem themselves Holy Writ are most certainly your opinion. Your opinion is that malakoi means the same as "homosexual" today. My opinion is that it doesn't.If I quote Buck...that is of Buck, and open to critique - fire away. But if I quote GOD, using the contextual elements of the faith in the WORD OF GOD, then it is no longer what Buck thinks, nor is it Buck's opinion.
And a common fallacy I see in debating conservatives is that for the the Bible is the end of discussion rather than the beginning.A common fallacy I see in debating liberals is that they turn matters to the source of the information, rather than the information itself. "What you think...", "In your opinion".
Yes. But when the messenger insists on his particular spin on the message he brings, one has to address the messenger. But as I say, this matter is now closed as far as I'm concerned because it has about as much point as a chocolate fireguard.Don't blame the messenger for the message. Look at the message. Ever here the term: "Don't shoot the messenger?".
James Sez said:Nope, you are arguing Buck's interpretation of scripture so feel free to take credit for your ideas
Lewis had a decidedly non-conservative view of scripture.
Well bravo James - how about some of you liberal types try using the WORD OF GOD instead of your own view of what it is God says and doesn't say.I'll give the this much Mr. Buck, in my mind you are the very definition of the most of the conservatives that I have known in my past and see here at CF. You have a inflexible, single-minded devotion to your understanding of Christianity and you wield it like a baseball bat, all in the name of Jesus. Whack Whack
I must be cutting close to the mark here to draw this type of response. Hey, if I was totally off track, it wouldn't matter would it?Karl - Liberal Backslider said:Ah. I'm a liar. Nice to know. No. YOU are the liar. You are falsely accusing me. And you know that that contravenes on of the 10 commandments. Repentance time?
Buck 72 said:I don't wish to throw stones at Karl, just the stuff that you argue to be acceptable to God with ZERO biblical support, and not only that, but a massive biblical argument to the contrary. I know that you are not stupid, but you'll need to figure the other part out for yourself.
I asked you a question - where does it stop? If gay sex is okay, why not animal sex? Just how sick does one's mind have to be to get beyond the liberal definition of "too far"? From what I see, many liberals dialate their "tolerance" wider and wider to accomodate the "broad road of destruction" right into their very hearts and minds. They do this by IGNORING THE WORD OF GOD, thus they are left to their own devices, and must either:Now you resort to the incredibly offensive equation of homosexuality with paedophilia. Fie on you. For the billionth time - there is no comparison! Paedophilia is abusive, involving a party that cannot give informed consent. There is no comparison with homosexuality.
Many gay marriage advocates will soon take up that position - I'm watching the sinkhole grow deeper in this world. I'm thankful that you see that too - just checking. Now, where in scripture does the "monogamous, faithful, life-long relationship" replace MARRIAGE? AND, where does it tell me that I can disregrard all of the scripture (and "natural order" to borrow a means of understanding from the theo-evo bunch that argues the cosmos invalidates the "six day" creation) that homosexuality is "normal" and permissible by God?Because we are not trying to reject the entire corpus of received Christian wisdom - which is that monogamous faithful life-long relationships are to be valued. Threesomes are not monogamous!
Says who? Prove it Karl! C'mon I'm playing baseball here, not Nerf! People will live and die by these things and you just keep arguing biblical truth with: "false witness"?False witness again.
Oh, so it doesn't apply - dang! I guess I can start being more tolerant of ga**...oh, hang on...this just in:But as I've pointed out, owing to translational and cultural difficulties it is not as simple as "reading off the paper it's printed on". Biblical scholarship is essential. Romans was not written to you, Buck, it was written to a bunch of new Christians in Rome nearly 2000 years ago. You have to bear this in mind when reading it.
Where is the holy spirit? How do you recognize Him? Does He move through the word of God? Or does He move through our FEELINGS?Jesus said it came through the Holy Spirit. If it comes from the word of God anyway, why does your interpretation of it carry more weight than mine, or Rev Dawson's?
Calvanist said:I am confused as to why we are even discussing this when the Bibel is so explicitly clear on the issue. Homosexuality is wrong, period. Don't bother going into finicky little translation discrepencies. God meant for man and women to be together, shouldn't that settle it?
So what?Buck72 said:If I'm wrong SO WHAT, I simply lose face in CF...big deal. But if the word of God that I'm contending is right...you'd do well to at least extend me the courtesy of mutual respect as a fellow heir to the promises of God that will not be content to sit back while millions move forward with a loose foundation.
In my mind Buck is looking at the word of God. I have read many of his posts and he has firm beliefs and people critisize him for that. You have your beliefs and he has his. Read closely to his posts he does not say "I think you are this or that" He is pointing out scripture to back up his beliefs. If you can not use the word of God you have no basis for anything! Then it just your opinion. If Buck is wrong show him where he is wrong. Others have and he is quickly to apologies or corrects himself. Yes people will interpet scripture different, but remember there is only one truth. I would bet, Buck is open to an honest debate on your interpitation but it seems most that disagree with are not capable to do this. They will just flare back with opinions. I would hope that any Christian reading these posts would side with the word of God over others opinions.James Sez said:
I'll give the this much Mr. Buck, in my mind you are the very definition of the most of the conservatives that I have known in my past and see here at CF. You have a inflexible, single-minded devotion to your understanding of Christianity and you wield it like a baseball bat, all in the name of Jesus. Whack Whack
Thank you to both you and buck for responding. I have had a poor record of getting people to actually respond to my posts.Katmando said:In my mind Buck is looking at the word of God. I have read many of his posts and he has firm beliefs and people critisize him for that. You have your beliefs and he has his. Read closely to his posts he does not say "I think you are this or that" He is pointing out scripture to back up his beliefs. If you can not use the word of God you have no basis for anything! Then it just your opinion. If Buck is wrong show him where he is wrong. Others have and he is quickly to apologies or corrects himself. Yes people will interpet scripture different, but remember there is only one truth. I would bet, Buck is open to an honest debate on your interpitation but it seems most that disagree with are not capable to do this. They will just flare back with opinions. I would hope that any Christian reading these posts would side with the word of God over others opinions.
Buck is not forcing you to agree with him or judging others. He is just stating scripture and you can take at as you will but our judgement is coming.
<><
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?