PDA

View Full Version : How do you view God?



Pages : [1] 2

Poly
May 13th, 2004, 08:21 AM
Here is a post by Clete from another thread, describing his view of God.

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

If you think I'm a right wing extremist, wait till you meet God. If you have a problem with me, you're not going to like God at all! I'm just a lame little Teddy bear compared to God. All I can do is post on this web site and shun as many homos as I come in contact with. The awesome living God, on the other hand, not only is the one who created the universe by the power of His spoken word and has the power to throw your soul into eternal fire, but He also happens to be the ultimate right wing conservative wacko extremist of the universe! And He does not like people who try to ride fences.
I suggest you pick a side and get on it!

Rev 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.



I agree with Clete's view. I'm sick of Him being made out to be a wimp or a good ol' grandpa in the sky. Yes His is loving but He is also rightous, just and holy. He cannot look upon sin and expects the same from us.
So let's get off the fence. What is your view of God? Do you agree or disagree with Clete? Give reasoning or scripture for your vote.

Melody
May 13th, 2004, 08:24 AM
My God is also long-suffering and patient, not willing that any should perish.

Aimiel
May 13th, 2004, 08:25 AM
The fact that He cleansed formerly 'un-clean' beasts, that we're now allowed to eat doesn't mean that He's going to endorse queers or apologize to Sodom and Gommorah.

beanieboy
May 13th, 2004, 08:36 AM
Mark Twain used to refer to God as a boy who sat by a campfire with a daddy longlegs on a stick, and threatened to drop him in the fire if he did not love the boy.

On Fire
May 13th, 2004, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by beanieboy

Mark Twain used to refer to God as a boy who sat by a campfire with a daddy longlegs on a stick, and threatened to drop him in the fire if he did not love the boy.

Beanie, keep asking atheists "Who is God?" and you'll go far. :kookoo:

beanieboy
May 13th, 2004, 08:44 AM
The verse in Revelation speaks to those who neither oppose God, nor love God, but simply go through the motions, more out of habit than anything else, and as long as they make it into heaven, they really don't care about their earthly spirituality.

Why would Clete quote this?

Because God spit something out?

beanieboy
May 13th, 2004, 08:45 AM
Originally posted by AtheistsSuck

Beanie, keep asking atheists "Who is God?" and you'll go far. :kookoo:

I think it is a good analogy to the preachers who used to scare and threaten people with hell and brimstone.

smaller
May 13th, 2004, 08:48 AM
ALL people have what is called a "subjective view" of God or of "Christ."

The only ACCURATE view of God is contained with Himself as only HE is capable of providing any sort of definition.

His definition is that there IS NO definition that BINDS HIM or CONTAINS HIM.

Even the word eternal does not CONTAIN the position of ETERNAL.

GET IT? I doubt it.

Aimiel
May 13th, 2004, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by beanieboy

Mark Twain used to refer to God as a boy who sat by a campfire with a daddy longlegs on a stick, and threatened to drop him in the fire if he did not love the boy. Sounds like you agree with this analogy. We (mankind, namely Adam and Eve) once enjoyed God's Presence and Company, in person. That relationship with Him was lost, due to sin. Jesus came to seek and to save that relationship. He said that 'whosover will' may come to Him, and have that relationship restored. That is what He came to do. That is what is offered to you. That is how we can come to know God. That is why He is knocking on your heart's door.

Melody
May 13th, 2004, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by beanieboy

Mark Twain used to refer to God as a boy who sat by a campfire with a daddy longlegs on a stick, and threatened to drop him in the fire if he did not love the boy.

My view of God is one of a spider sitting on a burning log and the boy put his own hand in the fire to rescue him.

smaller
May 13th, 2004, 09:43 AM
Aim meals god is a capitalist marketing effort....

BUY NOW and SAVE

beanieboy
May 13th, 2004, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by Aimiel

Sounds like you agree with this analogy. We (mankind, namely Adam and Eve) once enjoyed God's Presence and Company, in person. That relationship with Him was lost, due to sin. Jesus came to seek and to save that relationship. He said that 'whosover will' may come to Him, and have that relationship restored. That is what He came to do. That is what is offered to you. That is how we can come to know God. That is why He is knocking on your heart's door.

No. I agree with Melody's.
But that is how she represents God - as a rescuer, instead of a sadistic punisher.
Very cool image, btw. I'm going to think about that today.

smaller
May 13th, 2004, 09:45 AM
That's what Melody says, but she still drops the spider in the fire.

Melody
May 13th, 2004, 09:55 AM
No, but sometimes the spider bites the hand that is trying to rescue it.

smaller
May 13th, 2004, 09:57 AM
You can type, but you cannot hide eh?

So when the SPIDER BITES then the HAND DROPS it into the fire...smashed to pieces too I'd bet.

Melodies REAL version! No surprise.

Melody
May 13th, 2004, 10:20 AM
That still does not detract from the boy's attempt to rescue the spider.

Poly
May 13th, 2004, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by beanieboy

No. I agree with Melody's.
But that is how she represents God - as a rescuer
And yet here you are not willing to be rescued? :kookoo:

beanieboy
May 13th, 2004, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by Poly

And yet here you are not willing to be rescued? :kookoo:

I never said that.

But that is not what you represented.
You represented a boy with me on the stick, and threatening me that if I don't do what he says, I will burn, and he will dance around the fire.

I can't love someone who puts a gun to my head, and says, "Love me, or I'll put a bullet in your head. Don't make me do it."

That isn't love. That's threat, and fear.

Poly
May 13th, 2004, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by beanieboy

I can't love someone who puts a gun to my head, and says, "Love me, or I'll put a bullet in your head. Don't make me do it."

That isn't love. That's threat, and fear.
You hold a gun to your own head. You don't see that we all deserve condemnation and are condemned already if we don't accept Christ. He desires that you accept Him and loves you enough not to force you. Does He have to be with those that don't want to be with Him? If you don't want to be with Him then He won't make you.
You live with your choice to not let Him save you from your distruction.

On Fire
May 13th, 2004, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by smaller

You can type, but you cannot hide eh?

So when the SPIDER BITES then the HAND DROPS it into the fire...smashed to pieces too I'd bet.

Melodies REAL version! No surprise.

The truth hurts you, doesn't it tiny one?

Aimiel
May 13th, 2004, 10:52 AM
We gain from Christ's demonstration of The Father's Love, which cost Him His Life, after being tortured, simply to rescue us, the depiction of The Greatest Love: His Hand extended to us, who are destined to burn, as soon as this log heats up just a little bit more. He can rescue anyone who will take His Hand.

smaller
May 13th, 2004, 10:56 AM
Most of your "christs" DEMONstration of love is that The Mighty Hand of God cannot even rescue a little spider off a twig...IF there were 100 spiders needing to be RESCUED how many would YOUR CHRIST save????

4, maybe 6?

go figure...

Poly
May 13th, 2004, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by smaller

Most of your "christs" DEMONstration of love is that The Mighty Hand of God cannot even rescue a little spider off a twig...IF there were 100 spiders needing to be RESCUED how many would YOUR CHRIST save????

4, maybe 6?

go figure...
Isn't it about time for mommy to put you down for your nap? :rolleyes:

smaller
May 13th, 2004, 11:11 AM
Isn't is about time for you to tell the TRUTH?

Oh that's right, YOU CANNOT because THE TRUTH is not IN YOU.

Almighty God, MASTER AND CREATOR OF ALL THAT THERE IS cannot RESCUE a spider unless THE SPIDER assists Him.

Without the ASSistence of THE SPIDER God is COMPELLED to BURN IT, not only til death, but IN ETERNAL WRITHING TORTURE.

What a God!

not.....

Of course NONE of you will understand this BECAUSE THE TRUTH IS NOT IN YOU.

You have been BEHEADED for your previous testimony of JESUS CHRIST.

Where is THE MIND OF CHRIST?

It's in HIS WORD. HIS WORD is TRUTH.

Melody
May 13th, 2004, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by smaller

Most of your "christs" DEMONstration of love is that The Mighty Hand of God cannot even rescue a little spider off a twig...IF there were 100 spiders needing to be RESCUED how many would YOUR CHRIST save????

4, maybe 6?

go figure...

As many as were willing to be rescued. God wants to rescue all and he went beyond being a boy reaching out, He became a spider to show the way to the boy.

Aimiel
May 13th, 2004, 11:22 AM
All whom The Father has given Him. Each and every one whose name is written in The Lamb's Book of Life. Whosoever drinks of The Water of Life. Whosoever will; but not 'every single soul,' as smaller believes.

Poly
May 13th, 2004, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by Melody

As many as were willing to be rescued. God wants to rescue all and he went beyond being a boy reaching out, He became a spider to show the way to the boy.
Well said! :up:

Clete
May 13th, 2004, 11:26 AM
I voted, "I agree with Clete's description."

Imagine that! :chuckle:

I don’t really see what in world there is there to disagree with. It obviously isn't a complete description of God but in what way could it be said to be inaccurate.

God created the universe by the power of His spoken word; if you dispute this then you aren't even a Christian so what do we care what you think about the rest of the post?

He has the power to throw your soul into hell. Again, if you disagree with this, why should anyone care what you think about the rest of what I said? When you die, you'll discover the truth.

I personally cannot do either of the above things. If you disagree with that, well, then you’re insane and once again, nobody cares about what you think.

God is the ultimate right wing conservative wacko extremist of the universe.
I really like that! It just flows nicely off the tongue! Here, let's read that again...
God is the ultimate right wing conservative wacko extremist of the universe!
Beautiful! Isn't it great to have a God that isn't anything at all like Bill Clinton!
If you disagree with this, I suggest that you read the Bible, lest you become one that the Chief Corner Stone falls upon and crushes into powder.

And finally, God doesn't like those who ride fences.
Well, there isn't really much to say on this. If you disagree, again, read the Bible! It pretty much comes right out and says that you either do things God's way or you go to Hell. There’s not really much gray area there. Like I said to Cyrus of Persia, pick a side and get on it!

Resting in Him,
Clete

smaller
May 13th, 2004, 11:41 AM
Only WILLING spiders can SAVE THEMSELVES from ETERNAL TORTURE by GOD????

The WILL of the SPIDER reigns SUPREME...

HEY! I thought I saw your "god" there for a minute....go figure...

God remains INEFFECTIVE....over the will of the SPIDER.

you guys are really SOOOO funny....

but it is kinda sad that people really believe such things about God.

So we have the 5 POINT Calvinists

and the 4 SPIDER freewillers.....or are you a SIX SPIDER freewiller?

lol

smaller
May 13th, 2004, 11:45 AM
Jesus BECAME A SPIDER and SHOWED THE WAY to the 100 spiders, unfortunately only 4-6 of them figured it out. Too bad He wasn't a better example eh?

Aimiel
May 13th, 2004, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

And finally, God doesn't like those who ride fences.I don't believe that there is a fence. I believe that the dividing line between good and evil is The Word of God, and that it is so sharp, that if anyone tries to sit on it, they get a surprise.

Melody
May 13th, 2004, 11:56 AM
Too bad the spiders were so blinded by their own agendas that they could not see.

Clete
May 13th, 2004, 12:07 PM
Aimiel,

You have just been a veritable fountain of good posts lately! :thumb:

Cyrus of Persia
May 13th, 2004, 01:06 PM
I voted "disagree".

Not because he is not getting his ideas from the Bible. Even Jehowah Witnesses and any sect gets their ideas from the Bible. There is even nothing wrong with his description of God, EXCEPT the basic mistake any sectant makes: their teaching is UNBALANCED. I could quote scriptures as much that they would fill many A4 sheets about verses that disagree with Clete's interpretations, but i will spare time and give you only one to meditate upon - 1 Cor 13.

Good luck!

Aimiel
May 13th, 2004, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

You have just been a veritable fountain of good posts lately!Well, thank you very much. :Popup:

Aimiel
May 13th, 2004, 01:18 PM
I think it has to do with my new title, "Emperor-for-Life of Sinners."

smaller
May 13th, 2004, 02:44 PM
God cannot save BLIND spider either huh Melody???

What a joker you are.

Melody
May 13th, 2004, 06:46 PM
Originally posted by smaller

God cannot save BLIND spider either huh Melody???

What a joker you are.

And posting this made you feel better?

It obviously was not meant to enlighten me to a different viewpoint.

If you have a different idea post it and let it stand on its own merit and be proven.

But shooting down others ideas without evidence against them just makes you look petty.

And making derogatory statements against individuals just makes you look spiteful

1Way
May 14th, 2004, 10:03 AM
Clete is right, God is right, really ,,, right, far right!

As to all the fire and brimstone stuff, the idea wasn't invented by man you know... Balance and perspective is right, but the lake of fire is way more horrible than talking about it will ever be, and the broken record that “God loves you” is played a thousand times more often than “if you are not for Him, you are against Him.”

1Way
May 14th, 2004, 10:36 AM
Cyrus - Clete did not suggest a full depiction of who God is. He simply focused on one aspect that people tend to ignore or disbelieve and even violate.

So you say that Clete spoke the truth about God ”There is even nothing wrong with his description of God,” yet you reject it on a basis of your own expectation that he should have spoke about other aspects of God and not just one. Where is it stated to reject a particular view of who God is if it does not explain it all?

Then you said I could quote scriptures as much that they would fill many A4 sheets about verses that disagree with Clete's interpretations (which he just earlier said were biblical), but i will spare time and give you only one to meditate upon - 1 Cor 13. The love chapter, that is a hoot. You just set all of the bible’s depictions of God that are like what Clete highlighted harsh and judgmental and righteously judgmental and abhorring against evil, against godly love as though the two contrasts are not in agreement, even though you said they were biblical!

Loving goodness and abhorring wickedness are both just as “good and godly”. Godly love is not autonomous. Ro 12:9 says that granting “agape” love to start with, you end up with the sin of hypocrisy if you do not abhor evil. So necessarily, and without any disagreement, a godly love abhors evil. You should not see the disagreement you think exists, it does not exist at all.

smaller
May 14th, 2004, 03:15 PM
Greetings Melo


And posting this made you feel better?

No, but you typify the nonsense that is perpetrated as God's Wisdom.


It obviously was not meant to enlighten me to a different viewpoint.

No, it was posted to show the utter failure of some pathetic god that people have trumphed up in their heads.


If you have a different idea post it and let it stand on its own merit and be proven.

You know my position. God can, will, and is ABLE to save 100 out of 100 people regardless of "their" position.


But shooting down others ideas without evidence against them just makes you look petty.

I do very much like making fun of IDOLS and also of BURNING them.


And making derogatory statements against individuals just makes you look spiteful

I don't care what you think, your position would be the same as most here and it remains pathetically and inherently stupid.

smaller

Knight
May 14th, 2004, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by smaller

I don't care what you think, your position would be the same as most here and it remains pathetically and inherently stupid.

smaller Well then... maybe you should find another online forum to participate on.

You would be happier..... as would all of us. :kookoo:

smaller
May 14th, 2004, 04:32 PM
You must be one of those "God will save 6 spiders out of 100" eh?

If the logic of the exercise escaped you perhaps a casual review of the spider posts would be in order.

Then you can tell how smart you are.

I know you can pull the trigger on me anytime.

I am surprised you have tolerated THE GOOD NEWS as long as you have. Most people who damn others to fry in hell forever gnash their teeth and rush in to condemn me as quickly as possible when they hear that GOD IS INDEED THE SAVIOUR OF ALL MANKIND just LIKE HE SAID He IS. What a surprise!

Kudos for a few thinkers here who post in honesty and apart from fear of retribution and the fact that they are allowed to but WHATEVER.

enjoy!

smaller

Lighthouse
May 14th, 2004, 04:44 PM
I can't say that I agree or disagree completely with Clete's description. I do agree that God is a right wing extremist. But I think Clete should have left out the "wacko" part. I know clete doesn't think god is a wacko, and he was only saying that because that's what leftsits think of right wingers, but it just didn't look right. God's love for us is not that He will just accept us as filthy as we are...it is that He doesn't want us to be that way. He wants to cleanse us and make us pure and holy in His sight. Anyone who refuses that will have to die with their choice. And Aimiel is right, the Word of God is the dividing line, and Jesus is the Word fo God.

Melody
May 14th, 2004, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by smaller

You know my position. God can, will, and is ABLE to save 100 out of 100 people regardless of "their" position.



Actually, I didn't understand your position. And I agree with you on 2 out of 3 of your points.

God can and is able to save 100 out of 100 people.

But, he does make exception of who he will save.

1Cr 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1Cr 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

If you have a problem with this then take it up with God, these are his words, not mine.

As for your so-called tearing down of Idols, you are doing nothing by making yourself mirror your own posting name, Smaller, and damage your own message by linking it disrespectful and rude behaviours.

smaller
May 14th, 2004, 05:12 PM
Greetings Melody


Actually, I didn't understand your position. And I agree with you on 2 out of 3 of your points.

Well surprise surprise. Most here tell me that they cannot stand to hear it any longer, so I assumed you knew THE GOOD NEWS as well. My apologies.


God can and is able to save 100 out of 100 people.

But He WILL not be ABLE TO right? For all the reasons that the SPIDER cannot SAVE itself. The spiders WILL, the spiders SIN, the spiders BLINDNESS etc. etc. all USURP the GOD OF ALL CREATION.

I don't think so. Sorry. Such a god is not GOD.


But, he does make exception of who he will save.

You see exceptions as PEOPLE. This is because you do not understand.


1Cr 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1Cr 6:10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

I agree completely with EVERY TEXT and have NO PROBLEM with anything that you posted. It will always be YOUR SUBJECTIVE VIEW OF MOST OF THE TEXT that I will take issue with, as I do not SEE in the same way YOU do.


If you have a problem with this then take it up with God, these are his words, not mine.

Already said I AGREE WITH THE WORD, but not your selective, self serving, self justifying, self righteous subjective VIEW point. You are neither GOD or His Word.


As for your so-called tearing down of Idols, you are doing nothing by making yourself mirror your own posting name, Smaller, and damage your own message by linking it disrespectful and rude behaviours.

I happen to think it is VERY RUDE and HATEFUL to falsely condemn OTHER PEOPLE to burn in fire forever. This position makes you the rudest person on the planet. go figure....

smaller

Melody
May 14th, 2004, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by smaller

Greetings Melody


Well surprise surprise. Most here tell me that they cannot stand to hear it any longer, so I assumed you knew THE GOOD NEWS as well. My apologies.


But He WILL not be ABLE TO right? For all the reasons that the SPIDER cannot SAVE itself. The spiders WILL, the spiders SIN, the spiders BLINDNESS etc. etc. all USURP the GOD OF ALL CREATION.

I don't think so. Sorry. Such a god is not GOD.


You see exceptions as PEOPLE. This is because you do not understand.


I agree completely with EVERY TEXT and have NO PROBLEM with anything that you posted. It will always be YOUR SUBJECTIVE VIEW OF MOST OF THE TEXT that I will take issue with, as I do not SEE in the same way YOU do.


Already said I AGREE WITH THE WORD, but not your selective, self serving, self justifying, self righteous subjective VIEW point. You are neither GOD or His Word.


I happen to think it is VERY RUDE and HATEFUL to falsely condemn OTHER PEOPLE to burn in fire forever. This position makes you the rudest person on the planet. go figure....

smaller

From my viewpoint I am not the condemner but the watchman warning of the river and pointing others to the bridge over that river.

I don't have the abilty to force people to use that bridge, that is their choice.

How do you see the scriptures that I posted? You claim that My viewpoint is wrong, clarify yours.

smaller
May 14th, 2004, 05:45 PM
Uh huh...that's what all people who condemn their neighbors to eternally burn say...

I see your spiders have usurped your god. No surprise

Knight
May 14th, 2004, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by smaller

Uh huh...that's what all people who condemn their neighbors to eternally burn say...

I see your spiders have usurped your god. No surprise :kookoo:

Melody
May 14th, 2004, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by smaller

Uh huh...that's what all people who condemn their neighbors to eternally burn say...

I see your spiders have usurped your god. No surprise

Now see you are doing it again, rather than sharing your interpretation you are reverting to making fun of mine.

Again I am asking to share your understanding of the scriptures that I posted. You claim that you accept them as the word of God then explain how they fit in your understanding of God.

1Way
May 15th, 2004, 08:50 AM
Lighthouse – You said I can't say that I agree or disagree completely with Clete's description. I do agree that God is a right wing extremist. But I think Clete should have left out the "wacko" part. I know clete doesn't think god is a wacko, and he was only saying that because that's what leftsits think of right wingers, but it just didn't look right. I say it looks great. God is a very socially interconnected God that doesn’t mind making the hearer of His message work a little in order to understand His views. He is intensely concerned with our dealings with each other, especially in matters for and against evil.

For example, God did not simply make Pharaoh’s heart hard, if any one person did, Pharaoh did it himself. God saw the hardness of Pharaoh’s heart a thousand times as he tormented Israel and probably in many other ungodly ways as well. Yet, God thought it ironically couth to identify Himself at the root of Pharaoh’s anti-godly heart, even though God tempts no one with sin! When it came to,,, saving the world, :) God, who is completely without sin, ,,, says of Himself, that concerning all the sin of the world, He,,, became,,, sin(!!!), which sentiment taken simply by itself is blasphemy as God is anything but sin, yet because we are expected to well know the wider context of such an ironic statement, we know God was speaking generally and relationally about substitution and atonement and becoming sin “for us”, and it was certainly not that God was the most sin-full (sin filled) being ever. I hope the point is clear, God is big and good enough to be viewed as a right winged extremist “wacko”, which is a very mild idea compared to the one’s God made for Himself.

But, I think instead of your view, if God heard about Him being called an extremist wacko, He would be a bit miffed at us for calling Him that. He might say something like, Me? a wacko!?! Are you kidding, I am not a wacko, I invented wacko, I wacko with perfect form of wackoism, I am not just “a” wacko,,, I am the. :D

smaller
May 15th, 2004, 08:56 AM
Sorry Melody, I can't help making fun of a god who only saves 4-6 out of 100 spiders. Does this god happen to be Polish? (just KIDDING Poles)

All damnation texts were written to the devil and his messengers for whom the fires are prepared. There is not one named example in the entire text of any of mankind being burned alive forever, so it is poor interpretation on the part of the majority. They have merely found the broad path that leads to destruction.

Melody
May 15th, 2004, 09:54 AM
Luk 16:22 .... the rich man also died, and was buried;
Luk 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
Luk 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

What of the rich man in the flames of hell?

smaller
May 15th, 2004, 10:08 AM
A single name is all you need Melody.

Here's a HINT: Though the DEVIL and his messengers are disclosed by Jesus Christ as being SLATED FOR ETERNAL DESTRUCTION there is not a SINGLE NAMED INDIVIDUAL of mankind in the entire bible to support your view.

Any logical person COULD suppose that such a HORRIBLE FATE would deserve at least ONE NAMED EXAMPLE from the entire history of MANKIND???? But no, there is not a one sheep as listed for the eternal roaster.

I see the "rich man" or the "rich men" as the owners of the mortal flesh. The "men" or "man" of "sin." The same one(s) that Paul called NOT I or NO LONGER I in Romans 7:17,20-21. Most other writers in the text will confirm this position.

John for example says that SIN is OF THE DEVIL and that the one who sins does not know God nor have they known God.

Jesus Word was very often spoken to entites THAT WE in our FLESH cannot SEE.

Much of His Word was directed AT THEM and is MISTAKEN to be directed to MANKIND since these things dwell IN THE FLESH of MANkind.

Now you know, but I suspect that which owns your mortal flesh will continue to falsely condemn others to burn in fire forever and justify yourself. This activity is common among "the blind."

smaller

1Way
May 15th, 2004, 10:10 AM
Re 19:20 Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone.
Re 20:10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
Re 20:15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.
Re 21:8 "But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."

smaller
May 15th, 2004, 10:13 AM
My KINGDOM for a SINGLE NAMED EXAMPLE of MANkind for this OH SO IMPORTANT doctrine (that I do not deny....)

1Way
May 15th, 2004, 10:38 AM
smaller – Since everyone who fits God's word about who will be eternally damned will do, you may understand any such name therein. But no one here is claiming God's word has a list of specific individuals who will be damned, wake up oh delusional one.

smaller
May 15th, 2004, 10:42 AM
Ah, but you miss the point (surprise) 1Way...

When someone such as yourself or Melody claims that God cannot save 94-96 out of 100 people one should be responsible in making such an eternal judgment about this MAJORITY.

A single piece of evidence from the text such as A NAMED example should be in order because of the DISCLOSED EXAMPLES given are only the devil and his messengers and BECAUSE the texts you "universally apply" to OTHERS (of course) could be "universally applicable" only to the DISCLOSED parties to the ETERNAL TORTURE.

get it? too complex? Oh well...

1Way
May 15th, 2004, 10:51 AM
Here’s more about the exclusive rights to entering into the kingdom of God for eternity.

Don’t be deceived, only the righteous of God will be saved. 1Co 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. Many, not all will be made righteous. Ro 5:19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous. You must be found in Him. Php 3:9 and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which [is] from the law, but that which [is] through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith; God is our salvation, you must be found in Him 1Co 1:30 But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God——and (righteousness and sanctification and redemption —— Or you are without Him for eternity, alone with the pain and guilt and never ending damnation of your un-forgiven sin and wickedness.

I don’t miss the non point. We do not say that God can not save even 100%, we say He can, but we also say He will not because God is true, His word is clear on the matter that only the few will be saved. You argue as though beating the air, vainly.

1Way
May 15th, 2004, 10:55 AM
Knight was right, if you honestly find us so dumb and so unfit and wrong, then why stoop to our level, why not promote your self made ideas where people are smart enough to believe in you?

smaller
May 15th, 2004, 11:12 AM
I only observe the ineffectiveness of your "god" in "saving" 4-6 out of 100 people. This is a fair observation.


Here’s more about the exclusive rights to entering into the kingdom of God for eternity.

Don’t be deceived, only the righteous of God will be saved.

1Co 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.
Many, not all will be made righteous.
Ro 5:19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
You must be found in Him.
Php 3:9 and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which [is] from the law, but that which [is] through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith;
God is our salvation, you must be found in Him
1Co 1:30 But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God——and (righteousness and sanctification and redemption ——
Or you are without Him for eternity, alone with the pain and guilt and never ending damnation of your un-forgiven sin and wickedness.

But you see 1Way, I do not DISAGREE with ANY of the text. Only the FALSE INTERPRETATIONS of them that are used to CONDEMN OTHERS. I do not find such ETERNAL CONDEMNATION OF OTHERS (your neighbors) as SOUND. When the SAME STANDARD of your own judgment is APPLIED to you, you ALSO FAIL. This too is a fair observation.


I don’t miss the non point. We do not say that God can not save even 100%,

Well BRAVO for your little squeak of TRUTH.



we say He can,

No you DO NOT. You perpetually give your PLAINLY SUBJECTIVE AND SELECTIVE interpretations of WHY God CANNOT and you place nearly ALL of the CANNOTs upon YOUR NEIGHBORS.

I would find my neighbors largely NOT ABLE to TURN GOD from His Intentions.


but we also say He will not because God is true, His word is clear on the matter that only the few will be saved.

You only are consistent in your IGNORANCE of the texts that CONTRADICT your view making your view SUBJECTIVE nonsense.


You argue as though beating the air, vainly.

And your god is as observed, a PATHETIC LOOSER and a LIAR to boot.

Far from THE SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD which HE represented He IS.


Knight was right, if you honestly find us so dumb and so unfit and wrong, then why stoop to our level, why not promote your self made ideas where people are smart enough to believe in you?

The Good News is for ALL PEOPLE. Even you ETERNAL DAMNATION OF OTHERS people. I see you as beheaded for the testimony you HELD (past tense.)

By "beheaded" I mean GOD'S WORDS do not RULE your mind, but the accuser of others and the one who seeks to destroy others DOES rule your mind, that is also as obvious as the looser god you present.

As such you are a beheaded slave. I simply feel sorry for you.

smaller

1Way
May 15th, 2004, 11:16 AM
I can just see the smaller now. Police officer asks smaller for his driver’s license and vehicle registration
smaller says, what is the problem officer,
the officer says, I clocked you speeding 7 over the limit,
smaller says, but I don’t think my name is specifically listed for that limit, so I think I am excepted from the rule, may I have my license and registration back please.
Police officer says, step away from the car, are you currently taking any medications or hallucinogens? ... smaller is so wise and reasonable.

1Way
May 15th, 2004, 11:22 AM
Don’t be deceived 1Co 6:9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. Many be made righteous. Ro 5:19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous. Be found “in Him”. Php 3:9 and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which [is] from the law, but that which [is] through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith; God is our salvation, you must be found in Him 1Co 1:30 But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God——and (righteousness and sanctification and redemption —— Or you are without Him and His righteousness and redemption.

smaller
May 15th, 2004, 11:23 AM
How relevent and exacting you are in engagement you rookie debate tactic abuser...

BChristianK
May 15th, 2004, 11:26 AM
quote:
Originally posted by smaller

Uh huh...that's what all people who condemn their neighbors to eternally burn say...

I see your spiders have usurped your god. No surprise

I can see Smaller hasn't expanded his horizons since I put him on my ignore list. :chuckle:

Melody
May 15th, 2004, 11:31 AM
Smaller, you obviously have a very different concept of God than I do. But how has that viewpoint made you different from those you apparently disagree with.

Has it made you less judgemental than others, more accepting.

You claim to know a God that is all-forgiving, do you think that you are exhibiting the spirit of that God?

Have you yourself submitted in obedience to the commands of this non-judgemental God?

!!!!First
May 15th, 2004, 11:35 AM
The idea of how we view God - I was thinking on this the other day and became aware that if in the Bible where every time God shows mercy to us - and does not take action agaisnt us when we did something wrong - we would probably read a few thousand or million examples of where God seems to ignor our sin, simply forgives it outright - this is the case in my life anyways, and is aparent from talking with other Christians - that God has spared us His Wrath - allowing us to repent - but the Bible tends to record more of the events where God does not spare His Wrath - and people are punished on the spot for their sins - this I think needs to be taken into account when trying to understand the Nature of God.

!!!!First

BChristianK
May 15th, 2004, 12:16 PM
Clete, I respectfully disagree..

You said:
[quote]
God is the ultimate right wing conservative wacko extremist of the universe.
I really like that! It just flows nicely off the tongue! Here, let's read that again...
God is the ultimate right wing conservative wacko extremist of the universe!
Beautiful! Isn't it great to have a God that isn't anything at all like Bill Clinton!
If you disagree with this, I suggest that you read the Bible, lest you become one that the Chief Corner Stone falls upon and crushes into powder.


He isn’t at all like bill Clinton or George Bush, I don’t know why we try to create God in our own image, as if God were our petty political puppet or our mascot. God isn’t a an elephant or an ***, He is bigger than the right wing or the left. I would agree that He looks at the left and wonders why they are so quick to tolerate the sins He hates. And I would bet that He looks at the right and wonders why they make fun of environmentalists when the first command He gave Adam was a command of dominion over something that doesn’t belong to us.





[quote]
All I can do is post on this web site and shun as many homos as I come in contact with.


Which is what God did to us, just as filthy as homos gentile sinners right?

No.

He humiliated himself by becoming a human and hanging out with prostitutes and sinners.

Jesus hung out with them and then called from their sin to follow Him, the right wingers shun them and the left wingers accept everything even the sin. Sounds like neither side is very Christ like to me.





And finally, God doesn't like those who ride fences.

And He likewise doesn’t like people defining where the fences are for him.




Well, there isn't really much to say on this. If you disagree, again, read the Bible!

Have, am, will continue to, and still disagree with ya ;)


Grace and Peace

1Way
May 15th, 2004, 12:18 PM
!!!!First – There’s a world of difference between

God has spared us His Wrath

-- verses --

God ignoring our sin 1Th 5:9 For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ,

-- verses --

1Co 3:11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is. 14 If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. 15 If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire. Salvation means no condemnation in terms of where you will stay, but in terms of your reward, God’s fire consumes ungodliness, even saints can not sin and expect God to ignore it.

!!!!First
May 15th, 2004, 12:30 PM
1 Way there is a world of difference in
God seems to ignor our sin,

and
God ignoring our sin

but granted what you posted
God has spared us His Wrath

is much better phrased

I wonder though if I phrased what I was trying to say - That if every time God spared us His Wrath - if it was recorded in the Bible - would we have to go through a few thousand verses - or even a million verses before we read anything about God's Wrath - the point of the post I made is that most of God sparing His Wrath - the individual accounts are not proportionately mentioned in the text - that there are more accounts of God sparing His Wrath to His People, that are not recorded - than accounts of God's Wrath - agree or disagree but do you understand what I was posting about - and how this Wrath of God - as written in the Bible, paints a portrait of God that is a little unbalanced?

!!!!First

1Way
May 15th, 2004, 12:36 PM
BChristianK – You quoted Clete saying
All I can do is post on this web site and shun as many homos as I come in contact with. and then you said
Which is what God did to us, just as filthy as homos gentile sinners right?

No.

He humiliated himself by becoming a human and hanging out with prostitutes and sinners.

Jesus hung out with them and then called from their sin to follow Him, the right wingers shun them and the left wingers accept everything even the sin. Sounds like neither side is very Christ like to me. Shunning the sexually immoral is the godly response, yet you judge against Clete for his goodness in obeying God. Pr 6:16 These six [things] the LORD hates, Yes, seven [are] an abomination to Him: 17 A proud look, A lying tongue, Hands that shed innocent blood,
18 A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that are swift in running to evil,
19 A false witness who speaks lies, And one who sows discord among brethren.

1Co 5:11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner——not even to eat with such a person. Don’t be nicer than God. Shun sexual immorality, abhor evil, cling to what is good.

1Way
May 15th, 2004, 01:22 PM
!!!First – You said
- that there are more accounts of God sparing His Wrath to His People, that are not recorded - than accounts of God's Wrath - agree or disagree but do you understand what I was posting about - and how this Wrath of God - as written in the Bible, paints a portrait of God that is a little unbalanced? I understand, even that this issue can be viewed from several vantage points,

how many actual accounts total
how many were recorded
how many were not recorded
how many were of wrath
how many were of wrath withheld
etc etc.

But by logical extension, we can know much. When one single good event happens like the saving of a lost sole, the heavens rejoice. Lu 15:7 "I say to you that likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance. Likewise, when the wicked get theirs, the righteous seeks vengeance even rejoices in it.
Ps 58:10 The righteous shall rejoice when he sees the vengeance; He shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked,

Re 6:10 And they cried with a loud voice, saying, "How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?" So it’s godly to rejoice over a saved soul, and to rejoice when the wicked are avenged. If your love is not for both things, it risks hypocrisy. Ro 12:9 Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good. So it’s not about how many examples do we find, it’s about what is right and what is wrong, good and evil are mutually exclusive.

Poly
May 15th, 2004, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by 1Way

!!!First – You said I understand, even that this issue can be viewed from several vantage points,

how many actual accounts total
how many were recorded
how many were not recorded
how many were of wrath
how many were of wrath withheld
etc etc.

But by logical extension, we can know much. When one single good event happens like the saving of a lost sole, the heavens rejoice. Lu 15:7 "I say to you that likewise there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine just persons who need no repentance. Likewise, when the wicked get theirs, the righteous seeks vengeance even rejoices in it. So it’s godly to rejoice over a saved soul, and to rejoice when the wicked are avenged. If your love is not for both things, it risks hypocrisy. Ro 12:9 Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good. So it’s not about how many examples do we find, it’s about what is right and what is wrong, good and evil are mutually exclusive.

1Way's brilliance strikes again! :up:

!!!!First
May 15th, 2004, 01:32 PM
1Way

You make a good point - Though it is very easy for me to rejoice when the wicked perish, I for myself have to curb this type of blood lust - and try very hard to sincerely pray for God to hold back His Wrath on the wicked, so the wicked will repent; something that does not come naturally - but I do find this as being taught of the Lord - to pray for, and bless those - whom we would of otherwise as children of wrath - only cursed and hurt.

!!!!First

1Way
May 15th, 2004, 01:56 PM
The finality of justice and wrath upon the wicked

verses

The temporal opportunity to repent


God takes no pleasure even in the death of the wicked. Eze 33:11 "Say to them: ‘[As] I live,’ says the Lord GOD, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?’ Why, because God desires that all be saved, so sin and evil hurt God even though He is willing to forgive for all eternity if you will only trust in Him. So this godly appreciation for vengeance is not just general, it is specifically for those who are unrepentantly evil, and ultimately for those who oppose God and His righteousness. So it is not simply a “blood lust”, it is a desire for righteousness and justice, vengeance against the wicked, often because they have a general blood lust. We should “never” stop wanting vengeance against evil. But we should also always want evil people to repent. These are two separate issues that should not be confused.


Thank you closed minded Poly of exclusive biblical clarity.

Cyrus of Persia
May 15th, 2004, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by 1Way

Cyrus - Clete did not suggest a full depiction of who God is. He simply focused on one aspect that people tend to ignore or disbelieve and even violate.



Sorry, but i cannot agree with anyone who like Clete wishes certain group of people to be executed even if they do not use violence toward others (like murderers, or rapists do). And Clete is one of the leading figures in those boards who justifies his hatred toward homos by mis-using the Scripture. Instead the Gospel of Grace that calls everyone to repentance, he is advocating Gospel of Sword for certain people (and this time - homos).

Cyrus of Persia
May 15th, 2004, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by Knight


You would be happier..... as would all of us. :kookoo:

All of us?

I do not have any problems with Smaller. But i do have problems with hatred some people's posts contain. And i do not mean you.

1Way
May 15th, 2004, 09:56 PM
Cyrus - You have no problem with smaller, i.e. vile gross even gratuitously violent slander and personal strife central, ...

but you have a problem with people who oppose such things.

Sounds pretty much like you are trying to be nicer than God to me.

1Way
May 15th, 2004, 10:07 PM
Cyrus - You said
Sorry, but i cannot agree with anyone who like Clete wishes certain group of people to be executed even if they do not use violence toward others (like murderers, or rapists do). So in your view, God was wrong for making homosexuality a capitol offense. Homosexuality is harmful and promotes death by denying procreation (the creation of new life) and greatly advancing early death. Not to mention that it is immoral and sinful and evil.

I think God was right, so does Clete. You should learn to become loving instead of being a sinful hypocrite. Ro 12:9 Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good. You have one option, abhor what is evil and cling to what is good, or be a leaven promoting hypocrite by defending the evil of homosexuality.

Cyrus of Persia
May 16th, 2004, 06:19 AM
Originally posted by 1Way

Cyrus - You have no problem with smaller, i.e. vile gross even gratuitously violent slander and personal strife central, ...

but you have a problem with people who oppose such things.

Sounds pretty much like you are trying to be nicer than God to me.

Have you ever bothered to think deeply about Smaller's point he is trying to make with every message he posts?

Although i gave up discussing with him, because we got different views about some things, he is never filled with thoughts of killing some people just because their sex-orientation is different. You see - sinner is sinner - but if someone justifies killing someone, because his sin is so "special" i see it evil.

That is why i do not have problems with Smaller, but i do have a big problem with Christian Reconstructivists.

Cyrus of Persia
May 16th, 2004, 06:29 AM
Originally posted by 1Way

Cyrus - You said So in your view, God was wrong for making homosexuality a capitol offense. Homosexuality is harmful and promotes death by denying procreation (the creation of new life) and greatly advancing early death. Not to mention that it is immoral and sinful and evil.

I think God was right, so does Clete. You should learn to become loving instead of being a sinful hypocrite. Ro 12:9 Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil. Cling to what is good. You have one option, abhor what is evil and cling to what is good, or be a leaven promoting hypocrite by defending the evil of homosexuality.

One way,

You are either not read what i have wrote SO MUCH about homosexuality in different threads, or you are just ignoring my words.

1. God was not wrong, but His law against homos was bound in certain time in certain place, because it violated fertility principle.

2. You have still to come up with facts what say that homosexuality is more harmful than heterosexual sex. BTW, i'm sure you know that we live in times of demographical explosion, so talking about feritility in our world today is not an argument against homosexualism.

3. If i act like Jesus who did not promoted death for anybody, but called sinners to recieve new life, am is sinful hypocrite? I do not see Jesus ANYWHERE going around and wishing homos to be dead as i see Clete and his disciple Poly, and their spiritual son Dread Helm doing in those boards.

So maybe you think once again before you try to insult me about hypocricy. People with such mentality mock Gospel of Jesus what called people to recieve God's grace, and not to be killed by handing because someones sin happens to be SO SPECIAL.

The fact that your country is struggling with homo marriages now does not justify your hatred against homos. EVERY MAN is sinful and needs repentance, and homos are NO DIFFERENT.

If you reply in polite manner, i might bother to discuss this theme with you. If not, i will not let satan to take me over into same hatred, insult, and unpoliteness what is as big sin as any sexual sins.

Smackdab
May 16th, 2004, 10:04 AM
I agree with Clete's description

Hi Cyrus you said"1. God was not wrong, but His law against homos was bound in certain time in certain place, because it violated fertility principle."

Where did you get this from?When did God repeal his law against homos?

Then you said"2. You have still to come up with facts what say that homosexuality is more harmful than heterosexual sex."

The facts are in,homos die way younger than straight people.If you care about homos you'll warn them to turn from their wicked ways.

"EVERY MAN is sinful and needs repentance"

I agree,but"the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ"and you want to do away with the law.

1Way
May 16th, 2004, 12:40 PM
Cyrus – (Smackdab –) When God said that homosexuality is an unnatural sexually immoral abomination deserving harsh condemnation on the order of fire and brimstone for the self destructive dogs, yet somehow we should translate all that as meaning homosexuality is only wrong if the world needs more population. Like as though only having a million people worldwide represents a moral dilemma or something.

The fact is that homosexuality is sexual immorality, it is gross sin and allows for no support, only opposition. The way I see it, the only issue of reasonable contention is whether or not the law against it has been repealed. But on that note, should murder be legitimized too since the world does have a much larger population? Rhetorical question, murder and homosexuality should remain illegal.

1Way
May 16th, 2004, 12:47 PM
Cyrus - Even if homosexuality was a capitol offense instead of being a high society social status issue, my first response for dealing with a suspected homo would not be to seek their death, but to warn them that if they are worthy of death, to repent before it’s too late. Wanting to save someone is not to be confused with a lust to see them die.

Eze 33:11 "Say to them: ‘[As] I live,’ says the Lord GOD, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?’

So your accusations to the contrary are only false, God and those who promote His ways seek life and having it more fully, that is why we oppose wickedness, because we care.

Poly
May 16th, 2004, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by Smackdab

When did God repeal his law against homos?


I'm guessing it's when He started realizing He had an attitude problem. He took some anger management classes. He got some counceling and is in group therapy with those Christians who are "nice" enough to point out where He had been wrong in the Old Testament. He finally realized this and took back everything He said.

But it makes you wonder how much trust you can put in a God who was wrong in His attitude?

Smackdab
May 16th, 2004, 01:56 PM
1Way
"yet somehow we should translate all that as meaning homosexuality is only wrong if the world needs more population. Like as though only having a million people worldwide represents a moral dilemma or something."

So true,and not only that but God wasn't worried about the population when he flooded the world destroying everyone except for the eight
on Noah's ark.

"should murder be legitimized too since the world does have a much larger population?"

Thats exactly what Baby killers do, using the myth of overpopulation to further their agenda.

temple2006
May 16th, 2004, 02:13 PM
Hi Poly...Is that a pic of you?

Smackdab
May 16th, 2004, 02:16 PM
Poly
"I'm guessing it's when He started realizing He had an attitude problem. He took some anger management classes. He got some counceling and is in group therapy with those Christians who are "nice" enough to point out where He had been wrong in the Old Testament. He finally realized this and took back everything He said."

Ahh yes i forgot about that.
But the counseling obviously didn't take because Jesus said" But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me."
The new testament is where Jesus sends the majority of all people who ever lived to the lake of fire.

Poly
May 16th, 2004, 02:26 PM
Originally posted by Smackdab


Ahh yes i forgot about that.
But the counseling obviously didn't take because Jesus said" But bring here those enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, and slay them before me."


:up:

Freak
May 16th, 2004, 03:11 PM
God isn't wacko. He is the wise King of kings, Lord of lords.

1Way
May 16th, 2004, 07:24 PM
Freak - God is not wacko as in unwise, as in nuts, but of course that is not the context of the use intended. God isn't sin, and God doesn't even tempt to sin, yet God said that concerning all the sins of the word, He “became” sin (for us), and He hardened Pharaoh’s heart which was a figure of his sinful rebellion against God. I do not believe that God "actually became sin", He paid the price for sin “for us” (substitution), and I’m sure God would have been happy if Pharaoh’s heart would have yielded to miracles and demands to let Israel go.

God is a big time activist, subverting evil plans even on a national scale. You say “God is not a wacko, He is the wise King of kings, Lord of lords” but He had no problem calling Himself a heart hardener (as though He directly caused Pharaoh to rebel against God) and that “He became sin” (for us) making it sound as though He became the most sin-filled person ever. So given the context of the idea, “the ultimate right wing conservative wacko extremist” seems mild in comparison. God was wise and Lord of lords when He took on these and other similar distinctions in the bible.

I would agree that “wacko” has negative connotations that would not normally be fitting to what it means to be God. Yet “becoming sin” and “hardening a hard heart against God”, also seems a stretch too. God is healthy and has a good reputation, He can handle a little irony and hyperbole now and then.

Clete
May 16th, 2004, 09:35 PM
I do not fear homos and yet I readily except the label 'homophobe' and do so proudly.

I characterize myself, and those who know me characterize me as a careful and thoughtful person and yet at the same time I am pleased when someone calls me a fanatic.

Many people on TOL and elsewhere consider me to be a nutcase because of the positions I hold too, and yet no one would ACTUALLY try to have me institutionalized as a mental patient.

God is a wacko in the same sense that I am a homophobic fanatic nutcase. The homos consider me a homophobe and evil people (homos in particular) think that God is a wacko. I can guarantee you that God wears the Wacko of the Universe badge very proudly, as it is good thing when evil people hate you.
As Jesus said repeatedly...

Jhn 7:7b (The world) hates Me because I testify of it that its works are evil.

Jhn 15:18 If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. 19 If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you.

Resting in Him,
Clete

1Way
May 17th, 2004, 03:56 AM
Excellent stuff Clete, relationships matter greatly. He is the rock of offense, and also, the cornerstone of our faith. You can either stand securely on the rock, or get destroyed by it. God not only can handle the use of relational irony attached to Himself, He nearly seems to promote it. It’s like He’s daring us to understand Him rightly and deeply instead of superficially and wrongly. Pr 25:2 [It is] the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings [is] to search out a matter.

Pr 12:23 A prudent man conceals knowledge, But the heart of fools proclaims foolishness.

Pr 2:1 My son, if you receive my words, And treasure my commands within you, 2 So that you incline your ear to wisdom, And apply your heart to understanding; 3 Yes, if you cry out for discernment, And lift up your voice for understanding, 4 If you seek her as silver, And search for her as for hidden treasures;
5 Then you will understand the fear of the LORD, And find the knowledge of God.

Cyrus of Persia
May 17th, 2004, 05:19 AM
Hey, Smackdab!


Originally posted by Smackdab

Hi Cyrus you said"1. God was not wrong, but His law against homos was bound in certain time in certain place, because it violated fertility principle."

Where did you get this from?When did God repeal his law against homos?


If you look carefully you see some differences between what laws are commanded to keep even under NT, and what not. For example NT Christians are not commanded to aviod eating certain animals. Also you see nowhere in NT where someone justifies death penalty for homos like it was in OT Law. Of course homosexualism continues to be sin even in NT times (fertility was still important matter and you know how much cultural traditions lead our reasonings even after some norms have ceased to be imperative). But have you ever wondered if there was change between OT and NT due to socio-cultural changes, then what makes us to think that no more changes will be during 2k years after NT was written?



Then you said"2. You have still to come up with facts what say that homosexuality is more harmful than heterosexual sex."

The facts are in,homos die way younger than straight people.If you care about homos you'll warn them to turn from their wicked ways.


Please link some scientifical data, so i can check it out. And hopefully this data links early death directly with homosexual activity. And if you give links, i mean honest scientifical study, not what some preacher has said.



"EVERY MAN is sinful and needs repentance"

I agree,but"the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ"and you want to do away with the law.

My sentence was made to defend the position that homosexuals should not be dealt differently than other sinners. If you pick on homos only and want them to be killed instead of preaching them Gospel of grace like you do with all other people, then your behaviour becomes sinful.

Cyrus of Persia
May 17th, 2004, 05:25 AM
Originally posted by 1Way

Cyrus - Even if homosexuality was a capitol offense instead of being a high society social status issue, my first response for dealing with a suspected homo would not be to seek their death, but to warn them that if they are worthy of death, to repent before it’s too late. Wanting to save someone is not to be confused with a lust to see them die.

Eze 33:11 "Say to them: ‘[As] I live,’ says the Lord GOD, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?’

So your accusations to the contrary are only false, God and those who promote His ways seek life and having it more fully, that is why we oppose wickedness, because we care.

Oneway,

seems that besides of utter lack of seeing my other posts about homosexuality, you havent read Clete's posts either. He supports the idea that homos should not let into the church, but they need to be put into death instead.

I'm arguing that everyone needs Gospel, so they can repent. And all sins are equally worthy of death in the eyes of God.

Care to do some study into Clete's posts next time before you reply? You would save our time. Thanks.

Cyrus of Persia
May 17th, 2004, 05:28 AM
Originally posted by Smackdab


The new testament is where Jesus sends the majority of all people who ever lived to the lake of fire.

Yeah, and He does it without preaching His gospel of grace first. He just takes homos and kills them first, because he cannot be nicer than Clete.

byebye

Clete
May 17th, 2004, 07:03 AM
Cyrus,

You are truly being an idiot. And I say that as a point of fact, not simply to be insulting.

Do you really think that I am apposed to giving the Gospel message to anyone who is lost, including homos? If so you are wrong and have not gotten that from anything that I have posted.
I do think that homos should be executed through due process of law just as I believe that murderers should be and rapist and child molesters and abortionists (oh wait I already listed murderers) and whomever else is guilty of what the Bible clearly teaches is a capital crime.
I also do not believe that anyone guilty of such crimes should be welcomed in our churches. The church is not the only place the gospel is preached you know. And if someone repents and is able to demonstrate that he has repented then he would be welcome in the church by any and all means but such a person needs a great deal of accountability as I'm sure you would agree, as would he if he were truly repentant.

So please get off you high horse and give me a break. All I want is for the criminal to be brought to justice. Not simply for justice sake but also for the sake of the criminal as well. There is, after all, nothing like an impending execution to get a criminal to think about God.


Resting in Him,
Clete

1Way
May 17th, 2004, 08:42 AM
Cyrus – Right, I have not read other posts and threads despite your general and somewhat unrealistic expectation and request that I should. I prefer getting a solid understanding from God prior to making my views known. The most important issue is to find out the truth from God’s word on the matter and submit to it.

As to me getting Clete’s posts wrong, I don’t think so. You said
Oneway,

seems that besides of utter lack of seeing my other posts about homosexuality, you havent read Clete's posts either. He supports the idea that homos should not let into the church, but they need to be put into death instead. Supposed homosexuals should be confirmed that they are sexually immoral, and then excommunicated because of it (given no laws against homosexuality like in the USA). The bible does not lend an exception to prompt excommunication for the case of homosexuality.

So I agree with the shorthand version of Clete’s view, but not at the expense of the redemptive message imparted by saying why they are being excommunicated. And I don’t believe Clete is suggesting such a thing. Before or at the same time as excommunication the reason is given for it and most likely the purpose as well, to buffet the sinner unto repentance for future acceptance back into the church. The way you are reacting to Clete’s views, I think you have it wrong, also, and ask Clete if he agrees or not, I bet he does. During the course of implementing new laws, you do not create a new law secretly and then the first person caught doing it gets put to death, you inform the people of the land of the new law(s) so that the nation legal notice of what is no longer legal. But after fair notice is given, offenders should be promptly executed.

The desire is not to catch and kill the first ignorant homo, it is to dissuade all such capitol offenses in a godly and redemptive way. Just as the death penalty is at the heart of the gospel, so to is the death penalty at the heart of a godly justice system. As speedy execution of criminal punishment is the best deterrence of criminal activity and protects people from lawlessness and promotes righteousness and morality instead.

The NT says that as the governing authorities are God’s ministers of wrath, executing vengeance against the evil doer, not holding the sword in vein. Jesus affirms putting the son or daughter to death upon parental assault (Matt 15), and Paul affirms it (Acts 25:11), the pro-Jesus thief on the cross who rightly said they (the two thieves/murderers) deserved to be put to death while Jesus did not, Jesus did not correct this assumed righteous statement, and instead said he was saved. The adulterous woman who Jesus let go without stoning was a demonstration of repealing the death penalty as shown by the examples that He still supports it, God alone can forgive on an individual basis (David for example) and Israel had no authority to execute based upon their own laws, they might be committing murder in the eyes of Rome, so that case is no support against the death penalty. The point is that the NT teaches the death penalty, it does not do otherwise.

The death penalty execution is to be carried out by the authority of the government, not the church or family or individual. This is life giving and redemptive both for the one deserving to die because there will never be a better time for him or her to repent and get right with God. As they say, there are no atheists in foxholes, many men find God is their deepest darkest hour. And for those who might otherwise think they should try it out, the righteous execution would send a clear message that homosexuality is an abomination to God and should never be practiced.

God says that a swift execution of punishment against criminals including a swift death penalty is a deterrent. Ec 8:11 Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. As to your response to smackdab about the supposed shift between the OT and NT, I see no such shift at all. As for arguing from the negative, you are being ridiculous. What then? Since God has not restated the love teachings in the last 2000 years, they are supposedly nullified because the times are more evil now? You need to give a clear indication that the law did change, and I submit that you will not find it because it did not change, even despite your socio-cultural expectations that it somehow must have.

1Way
May 17th, 2004, 08:54 AM
Clete - Great timing(!), I was just saying that I did not think you simply want death to all homos first and foremost. The gospel should be preached, and the law should convict and swiftly execute all capitol offenders, which is redemptive in “and of” itself.

If Cirus seems uneasy or "unbalanced" shall we say, such may be expected while opposing God and the truth of a matter in such an important issue. Maybe he will be able to come up with something a bit more substantial than socio-cultural norms and arguments from negation, but I seriously doubt it.

smaller
May 17th, 2004, 09:04 AM
So Inquisitors Clete and 1Way would do WHAT to "unbelieving sinners???"

Preach the GOOD NEWS to them and those who do not "repent" are then "promptly and swiftly executed???"

and they say CoP is a little "unbalanced?"

Cyrus of Persia
May 17th, 2004, 09:09 AM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Cyrus,

You are truly being an idiot. And I say that as a point of fact, not simply to be insulting.

Do you really think that I am apposed to giving the Gospel message to anyone who is lost, including homos? If so you are wrong and have not gotten that from anything that I have posted.
I do think that homos should be executed through due process of law just as I believe that murderers should be and rapist and child molesters and abortionists (oh wait I already listed murderers) and whomever else is guilty of what the Bible clearly teaches is a capital crime.
I also do not believe that anyone guilty of such crimes should be welcomed in our churches. The church is not the only place the gospel is preached you know. And if someone repents and is able to demonstrate that he has repented then he would be welcome in the church by any and all means but such a person needs a great deal of accountability as I'm sure you would agree, as would he if he were truly repentant.

So please get off you high horse and give me a break. All I want is for the criminal to be brought to justice. Not simply for justice sake but also for the sake of the criminal as well. There is, after all, nothing like an impending execution to get a criminal to think about God.


Resting in Him,
Clete

You state it as "fact", not as insult that i am idiot? Oh, is it another "fact" among those "facts" you bring up to justify your hatred toward homos? Is this "fact" been taught to you by your Christian Reconstructivist morons? Oh, you are just violent crap to waste my times and nerves.

If you think that you are better than Jesus who would welcomed gays to Church (i mean buiding, btw, not congregation if you are still too silly to understand the difference), so they could hear the gospel even there, then good for YOU.

I have nothing to do with your reconstructivist christianity. thanks and byebye

Cyrus of Persia
May 17th, 2004, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by smaller

So Inquisitors Clete and 1Way would do WHAT to "unbelieving sinners???"

Preach the GOOD NEWS to them and those who do not "repent" are then "promptly and swiftly executed???"

and they say CoP is a little "unbalanced?"

Seems that they want to do that yes. That's why it's pretty pointless to argue with them, because seems that they know SO MUCH about God and His will BY THEIR OWN TWISTED INTERPRETATIONS OF THE BIBLE, that using the word "discussion" with such fundies is the same as banging the head against wall :bang:

You cannot argue with people who are not open for different interpretation, because they think their violent intentions are actually from God. But let the blind lead the blind, i will wash my hand from such pointless and unjustified hate, and talk better with people who got some brains :kookoo:

smaller
May 17th, 2004, 09:24 AM
IF we ran a survey of how many gay people are born of christian fundamentalists it would show that christian fundamentalists are the SUPERIOR SPAWNERS of gays.

Perhaps God is trying to tell them something????

like...

If you can't love your neighbors or your enemies TRY THIS

1Way
May 17th, 2004, 10:45 AM
Cyrus - You are being a hypocrite. If Clete is wrong because he called you an idiot but gave a just cause and was reasonable in answering your questions and false charges against him, and your treatment of Clete is that he is a spiritual moron, only you withhold using that title, but lavish in substantiating the same claim, so you do what you say should not be done.

Clete showed how you were wrong in making so many charges against him, the “fact” that you chose to ignore his righteous defense only to slander him the more, shows where your heart is all the more. If you were being objective about all this, you should have been happy to see Clete does not teach as you falsifyingly charged he did.

So Clete wants the gospel to be spread to everyone, he wants all to have the best opportunity to come to Christ, but you think that he is still worthy of your personal contempt, because he is catching you being a false accuser and ill willed.

Jesus would never lead a homosexual to church, he would minister the truth and if it was not accepted, off to the gallows it would be. Stop promoting evil, stop opposing God’s minister for wrath executing vengeance upon the criminal for the sake of righteousness and goodness. It is foolish to oppose what you claim you support. Or are you not a Chrisian? If so, I suggest you find better grounds for dismissing a bible teaching than socio-cultural differentiation and arguments from negation. As stated, Jesus did not repeal the death penalty according to NT sources.

LightSon
May 17th, 2004, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by smaller

IF we ran a survey of how many gay people are born of christian fundamentalists it would show that christian fundamentalists are the SUPERIOR SPAWNERS of gays.


Wouldn't it be better to actually do the survey before you proclaim the "answer"? :bang: This is just spurious garbage smaller.

How woulld you feel if I concluded from my survey of 1, that all universalists are morons?

enjoy

BChristianK
May 17th, 2004, 11:40 AM
I Way said:


Shunning the sexually immoral is the godly response, yet you judge against Clete for his goodness in obey God.


So you assert.

Was not this also the response Jesus had to answer in Mark 9:4?


Matthew 9:10-11 Then it happened that as Jesus was reclining at the table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and were dining with Jesus and His disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to His disciples, "Why is your Teacher eating with the tax collectors and sinners?"


Then you quote:





Pr 6:18 These six [things] the LORD hates, Yes, seven [are] an abomination to Him: 17 A proud look, A lying tongue, Hands that shed innocent blood,
18 A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that are swift in running to evil,
19 A false witness who speaks lies, And one who sows discord among brethren.


First, if what you mean by quoting this verse is that I, by disagreeing with Clete Phipher, have sown discord among the brethren. Then I would say that we need to apply this verse equitably and without bias.

If what you mean by this verse is that anytime anyone who is a Christian disagrees with someone else who is a Christian, that is tantamount to sowing discord among the brethren, then you should beg Knight to shut down all debate on TOL between Christians and use the forums previously used for healthy debate for posting apologies, since every Christian who has ever disagreed with another Christian is guilty, according to your interpretation of this verse, of sowing discord among the brethren. And a cursory look at the interchanges between you and Freak show that you aren't exempt from this.

If this isn’t what you mean, but rather you are operating under the assumption that you are absolutely right in your assessment of the treatment of all homosexuals, and then, based upon your conclusion, feel as it if is your duty to straighten a brother out using Proverbs 6:19 as the rod, then you must be consistent and admit that if it is you who are incorrect, in your interpretation of the verse you are about to use as a proof text, then it is you who are sowing discord among the brethren.

Se before we start using proverbs 6:16 as a billy-club, why don’t we engage in some healthy discussion regarding your proof text.



1Co 5:11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner——not even to eat with such a person.
Don’t be nicer than God. Shun sexual immorality, abhor evil, cling to what is good.

Notice that this verse has a qualifier.

First, it says do not keep company with any brother who is sexually immoral. Lets take add a little context, shall we?



I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 10 I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world. (1 Corinthians 5:9-10, NIV)

Paul says he did not mean that we are to shun the immoral people of this world completely for then we would have to go out of the world. He is saying that for those who claim to be brothers, but who are in willful rebellion to the standards of Christian behavior regarding sexuality, they should not be included in the fellowship of the believers.

It is quite possible, and likely in my opinion due to verse 7, that what Paul is saying isn’t, don’t “you ever be eatin’ in the same room with no homo’s!” But rather, that the customary meal that followed the gatherings of the saints is in view (verse 7), during which the Lord’s Supper was practices. This supper should not be accompanied by believers who practice homosexual behavior. Which makes sense to me, Paul didn’t want the outside world to be confused on where Christians stand on issues of moral purity. But that is a point of interpretation.


However, what is not a point of interpretation was Paul’s admonition about judging those outside the church?


For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13 But those who are outside, God judges.

So if Clete meant that he only refused to associate with a homosexual who claim to be Christian who, despite the admonition of fellow brothers for him to reconsider his behavior, persists in homosexual behavior. Then Clete is totally in the right to disassociate with such a person and exclude him from the Lord’s Supper, and possibly, to refuse to be around him at all.

If that is what Clete mean't, then I have misunderstood his point, and applogize for that misunderstanding.

But based on his statement:



All I can do is post on this web site and shun as many homos as I come in contact with.

It doesn't appear as if I have misunderstood him.

It appears that Clete is passing judgment on all homosexuals, even those outside the church. If that is the case, then he, or you since you have taken up the cause of defending him, needs to explain why Paul clearly doesn't as is evident by verse 10 and verse 13.
Finally, I would ask that you not count your chicken before they are hatched and refrain from using Proverbs 6:19 as a judgement text against others until you can remove all doubt that you have not overshot the aim of 1 Corinthians 5:11, and find that it is pointed at you.


Grace and Peace

Clete
May 17th, 2004, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by Cyrus of Persia

You state it as "fact", not as insult that i am idiot?


Actually, what I said was...

You are truly being an idiot. And I say that as a point of fact, not simply to be insulting."

I meant it to be both. It is, after all, difficult to call someone an idiot without insulting them. In fact, the "point of fact" remark did very little except to make it even more insulting. I suppose that this post has also had a similar effect.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Cyrus of Persia
May 17th, 2004, 01:25 PM
1Way,

i'm sorry, but if you lack of understanding what i write, i cannot help you.

prufrock
May 17th, 2004, 01:55 PM
God is the best that can be. It is what each of us wants to be someday. We aspire to flourish and to have ultimate influence. Over time this aspiration has led to feelings of guilt, because humans realize that their lifes are fleeting and they won't always have influence. So in hopes to extend this influence, they have concieved of eternal gods which also possess their aspirations. These God concepts have developed with communities and Become representations of the moral code of a tribe, society, nation, etc.

This is all that can be known about god through speculation. You will say that your God has been revealed. This may be so, but to me that is only speculation. Until God reveals God to me in a way that I can understand, It will not be a revelation to me. Only heresay. You are free to pray for me that God would reveal God to me in a way I can understand. Maybe he already has and I just havne't realized it yet, so there is hope, i suppose.

As for this thread, perhaps our mistake is taking the Bible to be the Word of God...hmmm.

I'm not trying to flame here, but I think that everyone is using not the bible as their moral absolute, but their own moral code? How else does everyone come to such discordant thoughts?

Now you will say that what "I think" doesn't really matter. The bible matters. No actually, you think the Bible matters. I think it's just a tool to satisfy what your moral compass has already set its sights on. You will tell me I am wrong. I say that you are only telling me that you think I am wrong. you will say I'm a relativist.

I will say this about myself and what I believe: I hope that a good exists and that I may live it...but I have no idea what this means and maybe I just hope that I will exist so that I may experience what is good. Of course I may not have a choice in the matter and find myself chained in hell when I die, but if I do, I will do my best to get the hell out of there. If I know one thing, it's that burning sucks.

smaller
May 17th, 2004, 02:01 PM
Well thanks for PAYING ATTENTION Lightson. I am not inclined to do the reasearch but would expect that someone already has. Perhaps beanieboy KNOWs such things...

Those "fundies" who DO have "gay" children MIGHT be inclined to "change" their minds on this particular issue eh? I know many fundie brothers and sisters of "gay" people who LIGHTENED up on this issue when it was DROPPED into their LAPS...

We'll also NEVER KNOW the real answer to the supposed "survey" 'cause every MaN is a liar in his own behalf...

I'd also bet that there are more GAY in the Catholic Clergy than in all other clergy in all other denominations combined....wanna bet?

Anyway WHILE you bothered to READ the post DID the observation go WITHOUT NOTICE???

That a FIRST HAND experience with such "issues" forces changes usually to the LIBERAL side???

I'd like to see more "christians" take a little dip in the Lake O...you know...give 'em a taste of their own "medicine."

I have always been of the opinion that if I was TOO opinionated against something that it could possibly come home to rest upon me as well...just for good measure.

therefore I try to tread LIGHTly...

enjoy!

smaller

servent101
May 17th, 2004, 02:08 PM
Smaller
therefore I try to tread LIGHTly...

This is appreciated, and for a Bible Only kind of guy - you do well in your interpretation of the closed canon of Christian Scripture.

You do not suffer the nerousis of other Christians who have to somehow deal with the God of the Hell Fire and Brimstone eternal flesh searing painful - and I mean painful hurt people who do not hold to the same apologetics as the fundies do - how do they deal with that? - well you don't have to have your psychie disturbed by such lunacy - lucky you, and you do not defame the Good and Holy Name of the Father... again lucky you... and blessed are those who hear the Good News from you.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

Clete
May 17th, 2004, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by prufrock
Now you will say that what "I think" doesn't really matter. The bible matters. No actually, you think the Bible matters. I think it's just a tool to satisfy what your moral compass has already set its sights on. You will tell me I am wrong. I say that you are only telling me that you think I am wrong.

Actually, you are wrong, but not for the reason you suggest.
The fact is that the Bible either matters or it is completely total worthless insanity. Your wishy-washy in the middle crap is not an option.
The entire Bible from front to back is about Jesus Christ who said things like you have to forsake you mother and father and follow me. He was a man who claimed to be God. The Bible reports that Jesus was murdered and then He rose from the dead and ascended to the Father to sit at His right hand. These things and several others leave no middle ground for you to stand upon. They are either true or they are not. If these things are not true then Jesus was a liar and a lunatic and needs very much to be forgotten. If, on the other hand, they are true then you are in fact hell bound, the lunatic ranting of smaller not withstanding and I can assure you that Hell does a lot more than suck. How does burning forever in solitary confinement strike you?
Oh, and as for trying to get out, one of your fellow unbelievers once rightly observed…
(Hell) “…is programmed to receive;
You can check out any time you like but you can never leave.”

Resting in Him,
Clete

smaller
May 17th, 2004, 04:31 PM
Well Clete, you SINLESS GOD ACTIVATORS have nothing to be concerned about eh?

The trouble is you should be able to stand up to your own ridiculous doctrines...fortunately you CANNOT.

Were I to even try to HONESTLY use you "SINLESS GOD ACTIVATORS" doctrines honesty could force me to acknowledge that ALL PEOPLE are going to burn in hell forever and YOU would be the FIRST in line.

go figure....

Yet you cling to what logically destroys ALL. Doctrines of devils for SURE...

double figures...

LightSon
May 17th, 2004, 07:36 PM
Originally posted by smaller

.... you SINLESS GOD ACTIVATORS have nothing to be concerned about eh?


Our hope is built on nothing less,
than Jesus' blood and righteousness.

In Christ and Him alone is life eternal. I pray that someday you will stop trampling on Jesus' finished work to save us.

smaller
May 17th, 2004, 09:26 PM
Trampling Jesus' finished work???

Who's leg are you pulling?

How many people have you damned to eternal punishment TODAY in your HEAD or HEART? You don't think He did a THING except for you and a "few" in the "pew" IF they happened to agree with you. (fat chance)

Face up to the TRUTH light(is darkness)son. Your "god" is only as good as YOU are.

and HEY, don't forget to condemn me to eternal torture Mr. Chicken. If you're gonna "live" in your junk doctrines THEN own up to them.

Duder
May 17th, 2004, 10:13 PM
Profruck -

God is the best that can be. It is what each of us wants to be someday. We aspire to flourish and to have ultimate influence. Over time this aspiration has led to feelings of guilt, because humans realize that their lifes are fleeting and they won't always have influence. So in hopes to extend this influence, they have concieved of eternal gods which also possess their aspirations. These God concepts have developed with communities and Become representations of the moral code of a tribe, society, nation, etc.

This is all that can be known about god through speculation. You will say that your God has been revealed. This may be so, but to me that is only speculation. Until God reveals God to me in a way that I can understand, It will not be a revelation to me. Only heresay. You are free to pray for me that God would reveal God to me in a way I can understand. Maybe he already has and I just havne't realized it yet, so there is hope, i suppose.

As for this thread, perhaps our mistake is taking the Bible to be the Word of God...hmmm.

I'm not trying to flame here, but I think that everyone is using not the bible as their moral absolute, but their own moral code? How else does everyone come to such discordant thoughts?

Now you will say that what "I think" doesn't really matter. The bible matters. No actually, you think the Bible matters. I think it's just a tool to satisfy what your moral compass has already set its sights on. You will tell me I am wrong. I say that you are only telling me that you think I am wrong. you will say I'm a relativist.

I will say this about myself and what I believe: I hope that a good exists and that I may live it...but I have no idea what this means and maybe I just hope that I will exist so that I may experience what is good. Of course I may not have a choice in the matter and find myself chained in hell when I die, but if I do, I will do my best to get the hell out of there. If I know one thing, it's that burning sucks.

Yes, I do the same myself when I read the Bible. I find what I expect to find based on my preconceptions of what the Book has to say. The Bible is like those, wudduya -call-em, ink blots that psychologists use. What you see when you look at it is largely a matter of temperment.

prufrock
May 17th, 2004, 10:51 PM
Well, I actually like reading some C.S. Lewis. His thoughts on pride seem to have more sense to them than much of the bible, which goes in one direction for a book and then changes it's mind in the next. However, his Lord, Liar, Lunatic trilemma is not complete. For instance, what about misrepresentation? could he not have been a great teacher whose teachings were manipulated and deified by some dissatisfied Jews? It is possible.

Oh and thanks for the veiled threat wishing to do away with me forever in hell. I'm glad you are not God. Of course I don't believe it as you do, what with the torture pits and fire. If there are souls, they will have to go somewhere, but it's purely conjecture as far as I'm concerned to describe such a place.

prufrock
May 17th, 2004, 10:52 PM
And what's so bad about the middle? Moderation, dear fellow, moderation.

Lighthouse
May 18th, 2004, 02:11 AM
Cyrus-
Homosexuality is a sin. And sin is sin. It doesn't matter what time period, or what the birth rate is. It is a sick, disgusting, vile, putrid, perverted [I could go on for a long time] act. And God has called it exactly what it is, an abomination! That's the bottom line. And I agree that those who commit abominations deserve to die for such acts, but I also know that repentance can save them. All they have to do is accept the grace God has given. If they do not, it is their funeral.

1Way
May 18th, 2004, 06:41 AM
BChristianK – You quoted me saying
Shunning the sexually immoral is the godly response, yet you judge against Clete for his goodness in obeying God. and you responded saying
So you assert.

Was not this also the response Jesus had to answer in Mark 9:4?

Matthew 9:10-11 Then it happened that as Jesus was reclining at the table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and were dining with Jesus and His disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they said to His disciples, "Why is your Teacher eating with the tax collectors and sinners?" It’s what the bible says, I hardly call that an assertion like a claim, I call in an observation or fact. If you disagree that it is a godly response to obey what God teaches according to my reference, then please say why instead of just raising attention to some other teaching. My citation is most suitable for was those who self profess to be within the body of Christ yet are grossly immoral. Your example is assumed to be among unsaved people. You need to consider the context better, the differences matter.

Then you quote me quoting the Proverbs passage where God explains what He hates, you say
First, (1) if what you mean by quoting this verse is that I, by disagreeing with Clete Phipher, have sown discord among the brethren. Then I would say that we need to apply this verse equitably and without bias.

(2) If what you mean by this verse is that anytime anyone who is a Christian disagrees with someone else who is a Christian, that is tantamount to sowing discord among the brethren, then you should beg Knight to shut down all debate on TOL between Christians and use the forums previously used for healthy debate for posting apologies, since every Christian who has ever disagreed with another Christian is guilty, according to your interpretation of this verse, of sowing discord among the brethren. And a cursory look at the interchanges between you and Freak show that you aren't exempt from this.

(3) If this isn’t what you mean, but rather you are operating under the assumption that you are absolutely right in your assessment of the treatment of all homosexuals, and then, based upon your conclusion, feel as it if is your duty to straighten a brother out using Proverbs 6:19 as the rod, then you must be consistent and admit that if it is you who are incorrect, in your interpretation of the verse you are about to use as a proof text, then it is you who are sowing discord among the brethren.

(4) Se before we start using proverbs 6:16 as a billy-club, why don’t we engage in some healthy discussion regarding your proof text.

(1) No, it’s because of disagreeing with God and or the truth of a matter that I would site causing strife and such. You tried to contradict the excommunication passage by referencing the “Jesus ate with the sinners and tax collectors” passage. But God’s word does not contradict itself, both passages are true for their own separate reasons. Yes, we should be consistent with our judgments, as well as be right with them too.

(2) That is just ridiculous. You are dragging the conversation below reasonable and intellectual levels.

(3) That is an unreasonable assumption. The tenor of this debate from both sides of the discussion is that God’s word is right and authoritative and as such invokes the reasonable assumption that both parties are (to some extent) adherents thereof. So I am simply addressing the grossly immoral who include themselves as having a righteous belief in the word of God (believers in God) and needs to be excommunicated because of it.

(4) No, I used it as God intended, as one who is offering the truth from God. As for proof texting, I dispatched your false notion of trying to contradict my reference with another. You have no standing to charge me with proof texting, I accept the entire word of God as being His word and that it does not have problem texts. As such, I am simply offering God’s word, no proof texting need apply. Your misuse of God’s word fairly evident in that tried to void the meaning of the excommunication teaching by the “Jesus ate with sinners” teaching. You are the one who needs to stand corrected for mishandling what you think is a proof text for you view, but was not.

You sited the following
1Co 5:9 I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. 10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. and then you said:
(5) It is quite possible, and likely in my opinion due to verse 7, that what Paul is saying isn’t, don’t “you ever be eatin’ in the same room with no homo’s!” But rather, that the customary meal that followed the gatherings of the saints is in view (verse 7), during which the Lord’s Supper was practices. This supper should not be accompanied by believers who practice homosexual behavior. Which makes sense to me, (6) Paul didn’t want the outside world to be confused on where Christians stand on issues of moral purity. But that is a point of interpretation.

(5) I wouldn’t insert homosexuality or any other capitol offense in there. God is clear to put them to death, so shunning would not apply to the homo. Shunning only applies if you do not have the option of capitol offense.

(6) God, not just Paul, wanted everyone, not just the outside world to not be confused about absolute right and wrong. Everything is a point of interpretation if you can place any doubt about the truth of a matter.

You go on to say
However, what is not a point of interpretation was Paul’s admonition about judging those outside the church?
For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13 But those who are outside, God judges. So if Clete meant that he only refused to associate with a homosexual who claim to be Christian who, despite the admonition of fellow brothers for him to reconsider his behavior, persists in homosexual behavior. Then Clete is totally in the right to disassociate with such a person and exclude him from the Lord’s Supper, and possibly, to refuse to be around him at all.

If that is what Clete mean't, then I have misunderstood his point, and applogize for that misunderstanding.

But based on his statement:
All I can do is post on this web site and shun as many homos as I come in contact with. It doesn't appear as if I have misunderstood him.

It appears that Clete is passing judgment on all homosexuals, even those outside the church. If that is the case, then he, or you since you have taken up the cause of defending him, needs to explain why Paul clearly doesn't as is evident by verse 10 and verse 13.
Finally, I would ask that you not count your chicken before they are hatched and refrain from using Proverbs 6:19 as a judgement text against others until you can remove all doubt that you have not overshot the aim of 1 Corinthians 5:11, and find that it is pointed at you. Misjudging God’s word again. All capitol offenders are to be rejected and excommunicated, they are worse than just being sexually immoral, in fact, they are supposed to be excommunicated from life for good.

Secondly, God’s word is teaching through the writings of Paul by drawing a distinction over what issue? It’s over who to accept as being a professing believer, and it is concerning that issue that Paul eliminates the rest of the world from this type of personal judgment because they are not “accountable” to the brethren for their morality in the same way that fellow believers are, the unsaved world is accountable just as everyone ultimately is, to God. But believers have an extra layer of accountability, which is the issue at hand, not otherwise.

There are many of other teachings that do not impose restrictions upon believers in Christ to righteously judge against the world. In fact, that is step one for a righteous evangelization of the lost, the message of God’s condemnation against them unless they repent and get saved, and that you as a personal representative of God also judge against them that they should go to hell unless they repent and get saved.

God is the ultimate judge, yet God thought it wise and good to delegate all judgment unto Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ and the Word of God says that the saints will judge the world and that if you are spiritual, you judge all things. Heb 12:23 to the general assembly and church of the firstborn [who are] registered in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect,

Joh 5:22 "For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son,

1Co 6:1 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? 2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 3 Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life?

1Co 2:15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is [rightly] judged by no one.

Joh 7:24 "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment." Again we see in 1Co that God is teaching a teaching for how to judge within the brethren, yet this time, as part of the reasoning for why we should do so within ourselves, God teaches that it is partly because the unbelieving world is so bad off, that they should be disqualified to judge such matters, after all, we will be judging them and the angels, and how much more so Christians should be judging the things in this life. So by taking in a wider context, it is plain that believers are to judge “everything” with righteous judgment, but when it comes to gross immorality, we hold “professing believers” to an unique accountability that the rest of the world does not share between Christians.

Christians, nor anyone who assumes or grants the name of Jesus for righteousness (i.e. trust in the scriptures for righteousness) are not islands unto themselves who can do and say whatever they please, we are subject to each other in terms of moral accountability. At the same time, we are to judge against sin and evil and wickedness and immorality, those are matters of absolute right and wrong, everyone is included.
Shunning is challenged in favor of acceptance and a call to repent//shunning is right to the extent that the immoral one assumes faith or righteousness in God
Homosexuality should be assumed in the excommunication teaching//it should be assumed as a capitol offense
You suggested that believers are only supposed to judge against (excommunicate) other believers//but you who are spiritual are to judge all things with righteous judgment, we will judge the unsaved world and the angels, so how much more we should be judging things in this life. I agree that not all homo’s should be treated the same. If you are a homo that is a self professing believer in God (site God and His word for righteousness), you should be personally rejected for such wickedness. If you are a homo and you commit sodomy or promote that abomination of a lifestyle where two of the same sex should engage in sexual intimacy that is supposed to be between man and woman, then that is a capitol offense according to God, they “should” be put to death.

Clete
May 18th, 2004, 07:10 AM
Originally posted by prufrock

Well, I actually like reading some C.S. Lewis. His thoughts on pride seem to have more sense to them than much of the bible, which goes in one direction for a book and then changes it's mind in the next. However, his Lord, Liar, Lunatic trilemma is not complete. For instance, what about misrepresentation? could he not have been a great teacher whose teachings were manipulated and deified by some dissatisfied Jews? It is possible.
Such a belief would require the assumption that hundred of people went to their deaths for what they knew to be a lie. One or two lunatics may be able to persuade themselves that some individual is god and thereby be willing to die but hundreds or thousands or perhaps even tens of thousands! I think that such a position would require more faith than would simply believing that Jesus was who He claimed to be.
Besides that, if this idea of misrepresentation is true then all you've done is basically restate the first of the three options that Lewis’ trilemma. If the Bible is a misrepresentation then it is a lie and must be discarded and you are still left with no middle ground upon which to stand.
What are you afraid of any way? Pick a side and get on it for crying out loud! This wishy-washy crap makes me sick. If you are going to reject the Bible then reject it and get on with your life, these little games you play with yourself will only make things worse for you on judgment day. And if you don't believe that there will be a judgment day then why do you give rip about what the Bible says anyway?


Oh and thanks for the veiled threat wishing to do away with me forever in hell. I'm glad you are not God. Of course I don't believe it as you do, what with the torture pits and fire. If there are souls, they will have to go somewhere, but it's purely conjecture as far as I'm concerned to describe such a place.

It wasn't veiled you silly foolish boy! And it's not veiled in the Bible either. You will submit yourself to the Lord Jesus Christ and acknowledge Him as God, or you will go to Hell. This is the Bible is as small a nutshell as I can put it in. Take it or leave it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

1Way
May 18th, 2004, 07:13 AM
The following issues presented seem well founded despite the various contentions against them. Those who affirm the acceptance or practice of homosexuality should be put to death.
(Capitol punishment as described by God’s word, not otherwise.)

Grossly immoral people who affirm God's word as righteous (believer in the righteousness of God) yet affirms gross immorality as acceptable, should be personally rejected. Those who affirm/support homosexuality (a capitol offense) who also reject God and His ways, should be condemned as evil and wicked, a promoter of a capitol offense.

Conclusion:
Clete is right to include “all” pro homo’s for personal rejection and contempt and for giving the reasoning for doing so to reasonable requests even though some are pro-homo. Is the Christian supposed to be personally accepting of a kidnaper, rapist, pedophile, murderer? Of course not, same with pro-homos because we Christians should know right from wrong and live what we preach.

Clete
May 18th, 2004, 07:16 AM
1Way,

Brilliant post!

I particularly loved this line...


All capitol offenders are to be rejected and excommunicated, they are worse than just being sexually immoral, in fact, they are supposed to be excommunicated from life for good.

Brilliant! :thumb:
I may have to use that one.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
May 18th, 2004, 07:20 AM
Originally posted by 1Way

The following issues presented seem well founded despite the various contentions against them. Those who affirm the acceptance or practice of homosexuality should be put to death.
(Capitol punishment as described by God’s word, not otherwise.)

Grossly immoral people who affirm God's word as righteous (believer in the righteousness of God) yet affirms gross immorality as acceptable, should be personally rejected. Those who affirm/support homosexuality (a capitol offense) who also reject God and His ways, should be condemned as evil and wicked, a promoter of a capitol offense.

Conclusion:
Clete is right to include “all” pro homo’s for personal rejection and contempt and for giving the reasoning for doing so to reasonable requests even though some are pro-homo. Is the Christian supposed to be personally accepting of a kidnaper, rapist, pedophile, murderer? Of course not, same with pro-homos because we Christians should know right from wrong and live what we preach.

1Way,

This might make your head go POP but I believe that those who promote or advocate a capital offense are themselves guilty of a capital offense and should be subject to the same punishment.

Resting in Him,
Clete

smaller
May 18th, 2004, 07:23 AM
I know of a little forrest in Arkansas where there are other people like you and Clete. Perhaps a visit is in order?

Perhaps a permanent residence there as well?

A perfect place for you SINLESS GOD ACTIVATORS. Perhaps Ninevah and Poly can accompany you as well.

There you would be FREE from those who SIN, damn them anyway.

Clete
May 18th, 2004, 07:30 AM
Originally posted by smaller

I know of a little forrest in Arkansas where there are other people like you and Clete. Perhaps a visit is in order?

Perhaps a permanent residence there as well?

A perfect place for you SINLESS GOD ACTIVATORS. Perhaps Ninevah and Poly can accompany you as well.

There you would be FREE from those who SIN, damn them anyway.

You won't damn murderers and childmolesters but will me. :think:

smaller
May 18th, 2004, 07:41 AM
The FALSE damnation in you has been set for execution already. It is only a shame that you serve what has been slated for death.

You want to judge child molesters and murderers and homosexuals under the law, yet you MURDER people in your heart DAILY.

Oh, and don't forget to tell me that you have never committed ADULTERY in your MIND either.

Sinless God Activators?

go figure...

cur_deus_homo
May 18th, 2004, 07:47 AM
Responding to what started this thread:

Mat 9:12 On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.
Mat 9:13 But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

Look up the context. Jesus wasn't "shunning" sinners, he was eating with them, the most important act of community and hospitality of the day.

Cyrus of Persia
May 18th, 2004, 09:16 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Cyrus-
Homosexuality is a sin. And sin is sin. It doesn't matter what time period, or what the birth rate is. It is a sick, disgusting, vile, putrid, perverted [I could go on for a long time] act. And God has called it exactly what it is, an abomination! That's the bottom line. And I agree that those who commit abominations deserve to die for such acts, but I also know that repentance can save them. All they have to do is accept the grace God has given. If they do not, it is their funeral.

Lighthouse i got a scripture for you...

Romans 1...
"26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. 29 They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them."

Lighthouse, aren't you worthy of death by this list also? So why pick on homos only and think that you can save your butt from death, while your own sins are as much worthy of death as homosexualism is according to the Bible.

Go figure.

Clete
May 18th, 2004, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by Cyrus of Persia

Lighthouse i got a scripture for you...

Romans 1...
"26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. 29 They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them."

Lighthouse, aren't you worthy of death by this list also? So why pick on homos only and think that you can save your butt from death, while your own sins are as much worthy of death as homosexualism is according to the Bible.

Go figure.

Are you suggesting that this passage teaches that boastful people (for example) are guilty of a capital crime? Is that really what you are saying?

Why do you even consider yourself a Christian then? If God is so unjust as to command the death penalty for slander then why follow Him at all?

You need to at least attempt to stay on the same page as the author when read a book Cyrus! It's no wonder you're so upside down on this. Your line of thinking on this would logically conclude that there should be no death penalty for anything. Do you advocate the death penalty for murderers? If so, then why pick on murderers only and think that can save your butt from death, while your own sins are as much worthy of death as murderism is according to the Bible?

See my point?

This passage is saying the homos are worthy of death because "Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them."

Resting in Him,
Clete

smaller
May 18th, 2004, 10:32 AM
Yes Cyrus, what's wrong with YOU???

Clete and 1Way desire to CONDEMN NEARLY everyone else under "the law" while they themselves under same law are clearly revealed as both LAWBREAKERs and SINNERs.

They propose however that they be judged as only under GRACE.

God hates a DOUBLE STANDARD bearers.

They want the STANDARD over their heads to be LOVE, but do not want to measure this standard to others...go figure

Acts 23:3
Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall: for sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?

James 4
12 There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?

Duder
May 18th, 2004, 10:45 AM
Clete, 1Way, et al -
Those who affirm the acceptance or practice of homosexuality should be put to death.
(Capitol punishment as described by God’s word, not otherwise.)

Wow. I see now that the new, glorious society of you guys want is going to have mind-police to remove those who affirm the "wrong" ideas. You are going to have a world where there is no more innovation, no more science, no more art - a society where people are constantly on guard against saying the wrong thing lest there be a mind-police informant within earshot.

Freedom of thought and freedom of expression are absolutely essential for humans to thrive as humans. It is our gifts of reason and communication that distinguish us from other species - and what you want to do is quite simply a crime against humanity.

No offence and nothing personal, but you know you're going to have to incite a violent revolution to bring about the society you want, and if that happens I will take up arms against you.

Cyrus of Persia
May 18th, 2004, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Are you suggesting that this passage teaches that boastful people (for example) are guilty of a capital crime? Is that really what you are saying?




Paul is saying that, not me.

And it's deeply your own misinterpretation of the passage sticked together with your homo-hatred attitute what makes you think that Paul is saying that only homos are worthy of death in this passage. He does not start with homos, but with those who worship nature instead of God, then he picks up homos, and adds many more sins what people do concluding that ALL those things are worty of death.

Few chapters after that he says that the wage of sin is death. Sin is sin and we all (as sinners) are worthy of death, but thanks to God Jesus died for us, so none of us (even homos who turn to Him) need not to die, but have eternal life by His grace.

Duder
May 18th, 2004, 10:58 AM
Clete -

Are you suggesting that this passage teaches that boastful people (for example) are guilty of a capital crime? Is that really what you are saying?

Why do you even consider yourself a Christian then? If God is so unjust as to command the death penalty for slander then why follow Him at all?

Cyrus' passage implies just that. And you ask a just question - why would one be inclined to follow such a god? Paul gives a whole list of errors that cause a person to be worthy of death. A person of integrity cannot point to the queers in that list, ignore the rest, and demand that the passage be enforced. That is intellectualy dishonest.

But as you so aptly point out, a god who says in all seriousness the things Paul is saying in this letter is not worthy of followers. So we are left with the decision of whether 1) God is a crude brute, or 2) Paul exaggerated or simply got it wrong.

I vote for the latter.

Clete
May 18th, 2004, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by Duder

Clete, 1Way, et al -

Wow. I see now that the new, glorious society of you guys want is going to have mind-police to remove those who affirm the "wrong" ideas. You are going to have a world where there is no more innovation, no more science, no more art - a society where people are constantly on guard against saying the wrong thing lest there be a mind-police informant within earshot.

Freedom of thought and freedom of expression are absolutely essential for humans to thrive as humans. It is our gifts of reason and communication that distinguish us from other species - and what you want to do is quite simply a crime against humanity.

No offence and nothing personal, but you know you're going to have to incite a violent revolution to bring about the society you want, and if that happens I will take up arms against you.

We are advocating the exact legal system God put forward in the Bible. Do you think that God advocates mind-police? This is stupidity beyond all comprehension. And frankly I do not believe that you actually think that this is what we are advocating. You say this simply in an attempt to discredit our position by putting words in our mouths.

There have been similar laws on the books for thousands of years. Every heard of conspiracy? Conspiracy to commit murder should be punishable by death, as should attempted murder. If you educate people on how to commit murder you are guilty of conspiracy to commit murder and should be executed. The same should be true if you publish a book that explains how to get away with molesting a child or raping women or any other capital crime.

But nobody is going to be bugging peoples houses or cars or anything else like that. Those things themselves would be criminal acts if done without cause. But if you are publicly advocating a capital crime then you should be prosecuted as though you yourself had committed the crime.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Clete
May 18th, 2004, 11:18 AM
Duder and Cyrus,

Paul could not have been saying that slanderers should be put to death along with homos and murderers.

notice what he says...

"Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them."

Where is the decree that slanderers should be executed? What passage would Paul have been referring to? What statute would these people have been aware of?

There isn't any. God never decreed that slanderers be put to death. Paul is simply observing that these homos where full of all sort of evil, including slander, and malice, both of which sins you two are guilty of committing even now as we speak.

Resting in Him,
Clete

adajos
May 18th, 2004, 11:19 AM
I voted "disagree" for several reasons.

One of them was the description of God as an "ultra right-wing extremist". I agree with BChristianK that God transcends human political classifications. If an infinitely wise God can be categorized neatly with our finite man-made labels than either He isn't much of a God, or we have remade Him in our image.

Lest I be accused of political bias, I have always been politically conservative.

Clete
May 18th, 2004, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by adajos

I voted "disagree" for several reasons.

One of them was the description of God as an "ultra right-wing extremist". I agree with BChristianK that God transcends human political classifications. If an infinitely wise God can be categorized neatly with our finite man-made labels than either He isn't much of a God, or we have remade Him in our image.

Lest I be accused of political bias, I have always been politically conservative.

God is the very definition of what it means to be conservative or right-wing! You cannot get any more covservative or right-wing than God is. He is therefore the ultimate right-wing conservative extremist by definition.

In case you've never thought it through before, politics and religion are in essence the same subject. Think about it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

smaller
May 18th, 2004, 11:33 AM
These things ARE worthy of death and they WILL DIE.

God's Children are ALL BOUND to disobedience SO THAT God may have MERCY upon ALL. (synop. Romans 11:32)

To say THIS MERCY is only UNTO THOSE who "accept it" is to ROB God of His Eternal Dispensation.

These "eternal things" are not left in the HANDS of CHILDREN my friends.

adajos
May 18th, 2004, 11:35 AM
Clete,


God is the very definition of what it means to be conservative or right-wing! You cannot get any more covservative or right-wing than God is. He is therefore the ultimate right-wing conservative extremist by definition.

In case you've never thought it through before, politics and religion are in essence the same subject. Think about it.

Are you saying "godly" and "right-wing" are equivalent?

You claim this is true by definition. Well, it certainly ain't spelled out that way in the dictionary. Are you finding that definition in the Bible somewhere?

beanieboy
May 18th, 2004, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by 1Way

The following issues presented seem well founded despite the various contentions against them. [list=1] Those who affirm the acceptance or practice of homosexuality should be put to death.
(Capitol punishment as described by God’s word, not otherwise.)


So, not only are do you want to execute homosexuals, but now you want to execute anyone who opposes you from killing homosexuals, or anyone who doesn't oppose homosexuality, whether they are gay or straight?

Duder
May 18th, 2004, 11:36 AM
Clete -
We are advocating the exact legal system God put forward in the Bible. Do you think that God advocates mind-police?

There are a couple of factors you have overlooked mentioning. First, if God did reveal a legal system, He took into account the people for whom the laws were intended. And those people were bronze-age folks taking baby steps away from tribalism toward nationalism.

There can be no rational doubt that if God revealed a legal system applicable to post-modern society that its details would be quite different from the system outlined in the Old Testament. I mean, God is a smart guy, better-informed than any human sociologist - and he would know that you don't try to run a modern world as if it were a primative, nascient state.

Of course God does not advocate mind-police. But if you want a state where people get killed for saying the wrong thing, you are going to need a force of mind-police, in contradiction to God's wishes.


This is stupidity beyond all comprehension. And frankly I do not believe that you actually think that this is what we are advocating. You say this simply in an attempt to discredit our position by putting words in our mouths.

I agree that it is stupidity. But the stupidity is in your blindness to what your "ideal society" implies. You DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE ADVOCATING! You have not thought it through. You have a blind spot that prevents you from seeing it clearly.


If you educate people on how to commit murder you are guilty of conspiracy to commit murder and should be executed.

Incorrect. Some classes I took in criminology could be construed as "teaching people how to commit murder". But teaching how to commit murder is not conspiracy. A discussion in the abstract of how to pull off the perfect murder is protected under the first amendment.

Planning an actual murder is conspiracy. See the difference?

That is why your statement below is nonsense:

But if you are publicly advocating a capital crime then you should be prosecuted as though you yourself had committed the crime.

Let me illustrate this with an example you can relate to. It is currently against the law for teachers to lead their students in prayer in the public schools. Perhaps you disagree with this prohibition. I would not think you are guilty of conspiracy if you publicly state that this law is wrong and that teacher-led prayer in public school would be a good thing. You are simply claiming your right of free thought and free speech - even though you advocate what is illegal.

Cyrus of Persia
May 18th, 2004, 11:43 AM
Clete,

You pointed out Paul saying that those people know that they deserve death according to God's Law (i use my Estonian Bible). It's hard passage, because at first he is speaking about people overally, i.e. even about those who actually might not know Mosaic Law. But let's think his way and say that even those Gentiles know God's Law and according to this law those things what they do are worty of death.

THEN...

It's still not about homos only. There we also find for example disobedient children, who according to law needed to put into death. And we find blasphemers and adulterers (unfaithful), who were worty of death also by Mosaic Law.

But as we move on with Romans, we find in 6:23 Paul saying that the wage of sin is death. He is not talking about homos only there. He is talking about every man who sins. That we deserve the death because of the sin. Every sin leads to death (so i'm not speaking about human criminal justice system what uses death penalty, but God's view on sin what deserves death).

Also we cannot see Paul justifying capital punishment for homos, disobedient kids, adulterers just because he mentions them in Rom 1. We could agree that those people are still worthy of capital punishment if we had ANY saying in NT that would plainly speak that those people need to be executed by criminal system according to Christian understanding. I dont see any verse. And until you cannot give plain and simple reference where in NT Christians are obliged to demand death penalty for homos, i dont see your claim to be valid at all.

But i understand that you are from different country than me. In your States people are still executed for example because of murder. In most countries of Europe there is no capital punisment for any people. I don't say that our system is better than yours (i do support capital punisment for people who are very dangerous and who have openly said that they enjoyed their murders). But even if capital punishment for murder is not valid in many countries in our present world, then i cannot agree with you about killing homos. Unless you find me clear quote from NT what says that Christians must support killing homos, i dont see much point discussing about it.

Duder
May 18th, 2004, 11:46 AM
Clete -

Paul could not have been saying that slanderers should be put to death along with homos and murderers.

notice what he says...

"Though they know God's decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them."

Where is the decree that slanderers should be executed? What passage would Paul have been referring to? What statute would these people have been aware of?

There isn't any. God never decreed that slanderers be put to death. Paul is simply observing that these homos where full of all sort of evil, including slander, and malice, both of which sins you two are guilty of committing even now as we speak.

No, Clete - you are reading your own biases into the document. Paul nowhere suggests this is a list of all the faults possessed by homosexuals. This is a list of faults (homosexuality, slander, etc.) to which God gives some over.

If from this list you decide that queers must be killed, then you are going to have to kill the slanderers, too, if you are consistent.

smaller
May 18th, 2004, 12:17 PM
When Clete and 1Way play with The Word of God it is like allowing children to play with a SHARPENED SWORD....they cut themselves...

fortunately the weapon was not a loaded gun...

AND

in the cutting process, the wickedness IN THEM has also been revealed clearly to others

amazing SWORD, that WORD eh?

BChristianK
May 18th, 2004, 12:51 PM
1 Way, regarding Matthew 9:10ff you say:



It’s what the bible says, I hardly call that an assertion like a claim, I call in an observation or fact.
which implies something. It implies that Christ did not take it upon himself the judge the world but to save it (John 12:47). It is an example of Christ’s testimony in concert with His admonition to us.


Luke 6:36-37 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful. 37 "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.





If you disagree that it is a godly response to obey what God teaches according to my reference, then please say why instead of just raising attention to some other teaching.

What I disagree on is that it is both godly and obedience to what God teaches according to 1 Corinthians 5:11ff.



My citation is most suitable for was those who self profess to be within the body of Christ yet are grossly immoral.

Right, it is most suitable for those who self-profess to be within the body of gross yet behave with gross immorality. I think that was suitably articulated in my challenge.


Your example is assumed to be among unsaved people. You need to consider the context better, the differences matter.
No Clete’s statement is assumed not to discern any difference.


All I can do is post on this web site and shun as many homos as I come in contact with.

Again, I don’t strive at pushing down the straw man. If Clete can comment on his own statement and ratify for us that his statement was meant in the context of professing believers, than I will apologize and withdraw my claim.

But it is interesting that you leave your analysis on this passage, in which you readily admit that it is directed at discerning matters within the church and go on, contrary to Paul’s example, to judge matter outside the church.

You say:




(1) No, it’s because of disagreeing with God and or the truth of a matter that I would site causing strife and such. You tried to contradict the excommunication passage by referencing the “Jesus ate with the sinners and tax collectors” passage.

No this isn’t what I attempted to do. Both passages are completely harmonious. I content that it is your fallacious interpretation of 1 Cor 5:11f that creates the tension. I offered the Markan passage to lend credence to that fact. I didn’t pit Mark against Paul contrary to your assertion.




(2) That is just ridiculous. You are dragging the conversation below reasonable and intellectual levels.

Yes it is ridiculous to assume that because someone disagree’s with you, that they must be sowing discord among the brethren. I don’t disagree with what the passage teaches. I disagree with the mistaken implications you extrapolate from the passage. My point is that you were premature in pulling out a passage to use as a billy-club. You a priori determine that you were entirely correct and then proceeded based on that assumption to use Proverbs 6 as either rebuke or as substantiation for your position. If it is the former, then I would claim the burden is on you to first make sure that the rebuke fits, which if your argument is that I am pitting one scripture against another, it doesn’t. If the intention was the latter then you have employed circular reasoning and your argument fails for lack of logical coherence.



(3) That is an unreasonable assumption. The tenor of this debate from both sides of the discussion is that God’s word is right and authoritative and as such invokes the reasonable assumption that both parties are (to some extent) adherents thereof.


To some extent…. Nice ;)

I guess the extent to which either or both of us are adherents thereof is TBD…

I’ll get real specific about what I meant. If you were using Proverbs 6 to accuse me of sowing strife among the brethren, then you need to get off your high horse. Come down here with the rest of us folk, and have a bit of a chat. Then, if after we are through chatting you still think that I am mistaken, you can get right back up on your high horse, and point your finger at me using proverbs 6.
Until then, who are you to judge another Man’s servant?

If that isn’t what you meant, then please consider the previous paragraph as wholly inapplicable, and please explain to me what it is you did mean.

You said:



So I am simply addressing the grossly immoral who include themselves as having a righteous belief in the word of God (believers in God) and needs to be excommunicated because of it.

Great! Me to. But I don’t think this is what Clete meant. He provided no distinction between those rebelliously engaged in homosexual behavior in the church, and those who are outside the church when he says he does his best to shun all all of them.

Clete, care to clarify?




(4) No, I used it as God intended, as one who is offering the truth from God.


Well I understand that you truly believe that you used it as it was intended, but you’ll understand if I require a little bit more substantiation than you just saying so. I had a couple of questions I think were deserving of an answer before you declare victory and commence to point fingers.




As for proof texting, I dispatched your false notion of trying to contradict my reference with another.

That would have been a false notion, were that what I was attempting to do, since it wasn’t, I’ll ignore this..



You have no standing to charge me with proof texting, I accept the entire word of God as being His word and that it does not have problem texts.

1. There was no hidden dig, you provided a verse, used it as proof. If you disliked the term proof text I’ll revise my statement “The text you provided as proof” of your statement. I didn’t consider proof text to mean the same as “prooftext.”
The former being the process of using a verse to prove a point, the latter being the process of grossly misinterpreting a verse out of context to use it contrary to its intended purpose.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t totally agree with the some of the finer points of your interpretation of this verse, but it was hardly prooftexting.


Now you say:


Your misuse of God’s word fairly evident in that tried to void the meaning of the excommunication teaching by the “Jesus ate with sinners” teaching.

Yea, that would be pretty abusive of scripture wouldn’t it. But that isn’t what I attempted to do.

I used the scripture to point out that your interpretation violated another clear teaching of scripture. Jesus, would have been violating your statement. “Shunning the sexually immoral is the godly response.”

If shunning the sexually immoral was always the godly response in every circumstance, then Jesus was ungodly in:
1. eating with Tax Collectors and “Sinners.”
2. Getting close enough to Harlots that they could believe him and follow him (Matthew 21:32)


Now I said:


(5) It is quite possible, and likely in my opinion due to verse 7, that what Paul is saying isn’t, don’t “you ever be eatin’ in the same room with no homo’s!” But rather, that the customary meal that followed the gatherings of the saints is in view (verse 7), during which the Lord’s Supper was practices. This supper should not be accompanied by believers who practice homosexual behavior. Which makes sense to me, (6) Paul didn’t want the outside world to be confused on where Christians stand on issues of moral purity. But that is a point of interpretation.

You replied:



(5) I wouldn’t insert homosexuality or any other capitol offense in there.

It doesn’t matter than you woudn’t, Paul did.


1 Corinthians 5:11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner -- not even to eat with such a person.

Isn't sexual immorality a capital crime in Leviticus?



God is clear to put them to death, so shunning would not apply to the homo.


God is clear to put adulterers to death to, so shunning woudn't apply to the adulterer per your logic, but it did...

It is now incumbent upon you to show me why Paul didn’t instruct the man caught in adultery to be killed by stoning since this is also a capital crime according to Leviticus.



Shunning only applies if you do not have the option of capitol offense.

Verse please?




(6) God, not just Paul, wanted everyone, not just the outside world to not be confused about absolute right and wrong.

Agreed.

Finally you respond to my final comments:



All capitol offenders are to be rejected and excommunicated, they are worse than just being sexually immoral, in fact, they are supposed to be excommunicated from life for good.

So if we are going to obey God you say we must reject and excommunicate all capital offenders no matter what, and if possible we are supposed to kill them, right?


Second, why do consider sexual immorality not a capital crime but you consider homosexuality a capital crime?

How do you substantiate this differentiation?



Secondly, God’s word is teaching through the writings of Paul by drawing a distinction over what issue? It’s over who to accept as being a professing believer, and it is concerning that issue that Paul eliminates the rest of the world from this type of personal judgment because they are not “accountable” to the brethren for their morality in the same way that fellow believers are,

Exactly. So why are you and Clete attempting to make “the rest of the world” accountable to the brethren for their morality in the same way that fellow believers are?



the unsaved world is accountable just as everyone ultimately is, to God. But believers have an extra layer of accountability, which is the issue at hand, not otherwise.

No arguments here.



There are many of other teachings that do not impose restrictions upon believers in Christ to righteously judge against the world.

I am assuming you mean, “there are many other teaching that do impose restriction upon believers….

This is the only way that sentence works with the following:


In fact, that is step one for a righteous evangelization of the lost, the message of God’s condemnation against them unless they repent and get saved, and that you as a personal representative of God also judge against them that they should go to hell unless they repent and get saved.

That is a judgement. Correct. Now we need to be extremely careful to be clear by what we mean when we look at the term “Judge.” It can mean making a discerning observation. This is the case in the verse you provide:


1Co 2:15 But he who is spiritual judges all things..


It also means, to hand over for judicial punishment, which is not our job. I can judge rightly, in the sense that I can make a right discernment, that is not the same thing as pronouncing guilt and punishment on another which is not my prerogative, it is God’s. As you seem to agree.



God is the ultimate judge, yet God thought it wise and good to delegate all judgment unto Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ and the Word of God says that the saints will judge the world and that if you are spiritual, you judge all things.
Right, when will that happen?

You say:



Joh 7:24 "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment."
Again we see in 1Co that God is teaching a teaching for how to judge within the brethren, yet this time, as part of the reasoning for why we should do so within ourselves, God teaches that it is partly because the unbelieving world is so bad off, that they should be disqualified to judge such matters, after all, we will be judging them and the angels, and how much more so Christians should be judging the things in this life. So by taking in a wider context, it is plain that believers are to judge “everything” with righteous judgment, but when it comes to gross immorality, we hold “professing believers” to an unique accountability that the rest of the world does not share between Christians.

Yes, we are to express our opinions about “all things.” See BDAG’s entry on Krino references John 7:24. We are not to hold those opinions due to appearances but in righteousness. And yes when it comes to professing believes we hold them in unique accountability. So let me ask you a question. What makes that accountability “unique” if we attempt to universalize that accountability?

Our accountability to one another is for our mutual edification, and to protect the reputation of Christ’s body. Those outside the church are judged by God. We don’t pronounce sentencing on them in this lifetime. Our Job is to be ministers of reconciliation not spiritual arbiters for non-believers.




Homosexuality should be assumed in the excommunication teaching//it should be assumed as a capitol offense.
Yea, as turbo and I have been discussing, I disagree. I think that the “homo’s commit a capital crime,” crowd are trying to mix covenants. The sentences of capital offenses in the book of Leviticus have been commuted in Christ. To single homosexuality out as an exception to that rule is inconsistent.




You suggested that believers are only supposed to judge against (excommunicate) other believers//but you who are spiritual are to judge all things with righteous judgment, we will judge the unsaved world and the angels, so how much more we should be judging things in this life.

I am called to be discerning about all things, not to execute judicial sentencing on all things, its important we keep the nuanced definitions of the word krinw and anikrinw in mind when we apply these verses.




I agree that not all homo’s should be treated the same. If you are a homo that is a self professing believer in God (site God and His word for righteousness), you should be personally rejected for such wickedness.

I agree, if a person rebelliously practices homosexuality then they should be excluded from the church.




If you are a homo and you commit sodomy or promote that abomination of a lifestyle where two of the same sex should engage in sexual intimacy that is supposed to be between man and woman, then that is a capitol offense according to God, they “should” be put to death.

Where is that found?

What covenant?

Grace and Peace

Clete
May 18th, 2004, 01:27 PM
Great! Me to. But I don’t think this is what Clete meant. He provided no distinction between those rebelliously engaged in homosexual behavior in the church, and those who are outside the church when he says he does his best to shun all all of them.

Clete, care to clarify?

Look if you want to understand my position on homos, all you need do is put "murderous child rapist" in place of "homo" and you'll understand.

I shun all capital offenders whether they perfess to be Christian or not until such time as they repent and join (or at least support) me in shunning other capital offenders.

Is that clear enough?

Resting in Him,
Clete

smaller
May 18th, 2004, 01:32 PM
I say we wrap turbans around their heads, and, you know, see what happens.

Clete
May 18th, 2004, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by adajos

Clete,

Are you saying "godly" and "right-wing" are equivalent?

Basically yes. I understand that there may be some political details that right-wingers might support that are ungodly. In other words, I don't mean to suggest that they are precisely the same thing but only generally.

Both religion and politics are about right and wrong. If you believe in a religion or have a world view that says right and wrong are subjective and relative, then you are a liberal if on the other hand, your religion says that right and wrong are objective and absolute then you will be a conservative. Thus it is religious distinctions that define what is left wing and what is right wing. It is the difference that people have in what they believe is right and what is wrong that cause them support the political ideals that they support.
Therefore my statement that God is right-wing cannot be disputed. God is the very definition of right and wrong and is therefore right-wing because left wingers don't even acknowledge that there is a definition of right and wrong.

Resting in Him,
clete

adajos
May 18th, 2004, 01:45 PM
Clete,


1Way,

This might make your head go POP but I believe that those who promote or advocate a capital offense are themselves guilty of a capital offense and should be subject to the same punishment.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Very interesting. What constitutes "promoting" or "advocating" these capital offenses and what Biblical support do you draw on for this notion?

1Way
May 18th, 2004, 01:53 PM
BB – You said
So, not only are do you want to execute homosexuals, but now you want to execute anyone who opposes you from killing homosexuals, or anyone who doesn't oppose homosexuality, whether they are gay or straight? Why is it that you hear what I say, and then get it wrong, and I have to comprehensively correct you about every time you respond? And you switch the specifics with generalities and visa versa.

No, not anyone who opposes “me” (again, you are unbelievably insulting and ignorant), those who oppose themselves and each other and ultimately God and His teaching to put to death those who are guilty of a capitol offense.

No, I did not pretend to say to put to death anyone who does not oppose homosexuality, I said to put them to death if they promote it.

And yes, to do so whether or not they are known homo or heterosexual.

Consider You have a terrorist who teaches and directs another terrorist to murder who he says to murder. So do you think in your wildest dreams that just because the dictating terrorist in charge did not actually physically murder the people, that he is not just as guilty as the terrorist who actually physically did murder those people? Not a chance. Culpability and guilt transfers through responsibility and authority.

Lets say you accept the death penalty for murder. Imagine a sick hypothetical situation. A father commands his 9 year old boy to shoot and murder someone. So would it be conceivably right to execute the kid, and let the father go on the grounds that he only supported the operation, he did not actually physically “do” the murder.

1Way
May 18th, 2004, 02:02 PM
Clete - Great point about guilt by association, I forgot about that issue earlier.

beanieboy
May 18th, 2004, 02:07 PM
.

beanieboy
May 18th, 2004, 02:17 PM
What does "promote it" mean?

To me, promoting it means taking out commercials, encouraging people to be gay. "Now how much would you pay? But wait! There's more!"

But some say that if you won't say it is bad, you are promoting it.

Is that what you are saying?

And you would kill millions of people?

beanieboy
May 18th, 2004, 02:18 PM
What about those who do not oppose it because they have a different faith? Kill them too?

adajos
May 18th, 2004, 02:18 PM
Clete:

Earlier I asked you:


Are you saying "godly" and "right-wing" are equivalent?

To which you responded:


Basically yes. I understand that there may be some political details that right-wingers might support that are ungodly. In other words, I don't mean to suggest that they are precisely the same thing but only generally.

So it's possible to be right-wing yet ungodly, but impossible to be godly if not right-wing?

Let me see if I understand. You are subordinating godliness to politics by making godliness a subset of "right-wingness"? I find this contradictory, because later in your post you claim that God is the definition of right and wrong. If that is so, then why isn't politics subordinated to godliness by having "right-wingness" being a subset of godliness?

I'm imagining it's because if "right-wing" was just a subset of godliness it would allow room for "left-wing" to be godly as well. Your political opinions have been elevated the status of holy righteousness though, so you can't let left-wingers be godly, so you subordinate godliness to politics.

You have fused the Kingdom of God and Kingdom of Man together to such a degree that you cannot recognize what is God's and what is man's.


Both religion and politics are about right and wrong.

Actually politics and government are about keeping order--and to an extent punishing wrong behavior is a part of that. But there's more to it than that. In America it has meant building highways and providing for the common defense--issues which are not moral issues.

Christianity is about so much more than morality as well.


If you believe in a religion or have a world view that says right and wrong are subjective and relative, then you are a liberal if on the other hand, your religion says that right and wrong are objective and absolute then you will be a conservative.

What about liberals who believe in objective right and wrong? For instance, one of my old college history professors who was one of the most sincere Christian people I have ever known, who voted Democrat in every election and was a moderate left-winger?


Thus it is religious distinctions that define what is left wing and what is right wing.

Nope. Why are there atheists who vote right-wing and atheists who vote left-wing then? There's no religious distinction between them.

If you dispute the notion of "right-wing atheist" I can point you to an email address of a friend of mine who is just that.


Therefore my statement that God is right-wing cannot be disputed. God is the very definition of right and wrong and is therefore right-wing because left wingers don't even acknowledge that there is a definition of right and wrong.

Actually, I think I just disputed it. Liberals don't necessarily believe that there is no right and wrong as you like to paint them. And this is coming from me, a conservative.

I think you need to start realizing that everything isn't quite as simple as you'd like to make it. Godliness and conservatism aren't the same thing.

servent101
May 18th, 2004, 03:59 PM
beanieboy
What about those who do not oppose it because they have a different faith? Kill them too?

beanieboy - if you are experiencing a desire for sensual gratification as some people and apparently you yourself have made mention of - it worries me less than your apetite for these absurd debates and discussions.

Generally when we fail at controlling our cravings or wants by the proper use of our intelligence there is a whole gammet of things that we crave that keep us from an unadulterated consciousness - if you find out what it is that is in your psyche that makes you want some things - the outward signs - sexual sense gratification - is only the outward sign - I am more worried about your desire for entertaining the filth on TOL - and if you find the root cause for that - your desire for lust, will probably be more easily understood, and dealt with in an intelligent manner.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

Clete
May 18th, 2004, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by adajos
So it's possible to be right-wing yet ungodly, but impossible to be godly if not right-wing?
To whatever extent you are Godly you are right-wing or conservative. I cannot think of a single exception but I suppose that doesn't mean there aren't any.


Let me see if I understand. You are subordinating godliness to politics by making godliness a subset of "right-wingness"? I find this contradictory, because later in your post you claim that God is the definition of right and wrong. If that is so, then why isn't politics subordinated to godliness by having "right-wingness" being a subset of godliness?
I do not subordinate Godliness to politics. As you have pointed out I said just the reverse.
Why do acknowledge what I say then intentionally argue as though I said something else?


I’m imagining it's because if "right-wing" was just a subset of godliness it would allow room for "left-wing" to be godly as well. Your political opinions have been elevated the status of holy righteousness though, so you can't let left-wingers be godly, so you subordinate godliness to politics.
left-wing politics are not Godly, and anyone who holds to left-wing principles are to that extent ungodly. That doesn't mean that your aren't a Christian if you hold to liberal ideologies, it just means you're not a very good one.


You have fused the Kingdom of God and Kingdom of Man together to such a degree that you cannot recognize what is God's and what is man's.
Not to any more of an extent than God Himself has. It is He would said put the murderer to death. It is He who wrote the Ten Commandments, which nearly every law in all of western civilization is based upon in one way or another.
The law defines for a society what they hold to be right and wrong. Laws are defined and codified via the political system and thus beliefs about what is right and what is wrong drive the political machine.


Actually politics and government are about keeping order--and to an extent punishing wrong behavior is a part of that. But there's more to it than that. In America it has meant building highways and providing for the common defense--issues which are not moral issues.
They are moral issues in the context of government. A government that does not provide for the defense and infrastructure of the nation is an evil nation and God will hold the governing officials responsible for the harm they do to their citizens.


Christianity is about so much more than morality as well.
Really? Christianity has primarily to do with having a relationship with God.
1. Does God accept me?
2. On what basis does He do so?

Sounds pretty much like morality to me.


What about liberals who believe in objective right and wrong? For instance, one of my old college history professors who was one of the most sincere Christian people I have ever known, who voted Democrat in every election and was a moderate left-winger?
To what ever extent he was a left-winger, he was ungodly. Do you think that it was a godly thing for him to have voted for Bill Clinton? I certainly don't!


Nope. Why are there atheists who vote right-wing and atheists who vote left-wing then? There's no religious distinction between them.
This is not so. Atheism is a religion of sorts. It is a belief that there is not God and by extension no moral absolutes. The vast majority of atheists are very liberal but even a broken clock is right twice a day. This is why I acknowledged that religion and politics are not precisely the same thing because even if an evil person utilizes a godly principle they will benefit from it. So it not that liberals are incapable of doing anything that might be considered right-wing but that they do not do them for the same reasons.


If you dispute the notion of "right-wing atheist" I can point you to an email address of a friend of mine who is just that.
I have no doubt that there are aberrations to what one would expect to see normally. Once again my statement is a generality. However, your friend is internally conflicted and inconsistent because he cannot say that the left-wing is wrong for any reason that is consistent with his belief that people have evolved from slime and that there is no absolute moral standard.


Actually, I think I just disputed it. Liberals don't necessarily believe that there is no right and wrong as you like to paint them. And this is coming from me, a conservative.
Quite right. You are pouring more into my words than what I am saying. To whatever extent a liberal believes that there are moral absolutes then to that extent he is conservative or right-wing. There is admittedly a spectrum here, the right side of which is defined by God and the left by Hillary. There is no one to the right of God, period.


I think you need to start realizing that everything isn't quite as simple as you'd like to make it. Godliness and conservatism aren't the same thing.

Oh yes they are. Name one Godly thing that is not conservative or vice versa. Go ahead, try to name one.

Anti-choice (abortion) – Godly
Death penalty for murderers – Godly
Low taxes – Godly
Freedom – Godly
Anti homo – Godly
Anti euthanasia – Godly
Pro Military - Godly

Pro Choice – Ungodly
Voting for Bill Clinton – Ungodly
Voting for George Bush – Ungodly
Pro-abortion – Ungodly
High taxes – Ungodly
Big Government – Ungodly
Welfare – Ungodly

I could go on and on and on. Can you think of even one single major issue that would not fit into this pattern? I don’t think you can. This is why when people list the things they don’t like to talk about, they always say religion AND politics. This is because they are basically the same subject.

Resting in Him,
Clete

1Way
May 18th, 2004, 05:19 PM
Servant101 – That is just beautiful. You promote to the pro-homo to focus on his lusts and desire for sexual gratification, while being worried about what you consider to be something absurd as he demonstrates interest in theological debate here at TOL. I think you are making us few conservative Christians at TOL out to be the bad guy, and in comparison making his homosexuality an acceptable thing.

1Way
May 18th, 2004, 05:22 PM
BB – You asked about the difference between promoting and not opposing. Sorry, I don’t think I’m qualified to explain such a deep and profoundly complex idea. Good luck. As to
And you would kill millions of people? By obeying God, millions would avoid death and destruction so millions of lives would be saved. But you got it backwards, again, go figure.

You said
What about those who do not oppose it because they have a different faith? Kill them too? You might be smarter and wiser than God, though I have my doubts. Put your exception to the rule to the committee for correcting the bible, and who knows, maybe your ideas will FLY.

BChristianK
May 18th, 2004, 11:09 PM
Clete Said:



To whatever extent you are Godly you are right-wing or conservative. I cannot think of a single exception but I suppose that doesn't mean there aren't any.

So political conservatism has become the litmus test for godliness.

So much for…


"By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another."




left-wing politics are not Godly, and anyone who holds to left-wing principles are to that extent ungodly. That doesn't mean that your aren't a Christian if you hold to liberal ideologies, it just means you're not a very good one.

You are making statements you can’t substantiate. Furthermore you're moving the goal post. We should all be paying more attention to how well we're doing not evaluating how poorly another person is performing in thier Christian duties.

Lets look at Duder. He’s a great example of someone that doesn't fit your paradigm. As far as I know, Duder apposes the war because he sees that it is a compromise of peace.
He realizes that Christ said:

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God: (Matthew 5:9)
He recounts Jesus’ words to Peter, “Those who live by the sword will die by the sword.” (Matthew 26:52) and he remembers that God flooded the earth in the days of Noah because the earth was filled with violence.

Are his reasons for apposing the war in Iraq ungodly?

Was Jesus ungodly for promoting peace?

Clete Said:



Not to any more of an extent than God Himself has. It is He would said put the murderer to death. It is He who wrote the Ten Commandments, which nearly every law in all of western civilization is based upon in one way or another.

And it was God who said:, “This is my Son, listen to Him. (Matthew 17:5). I find it very interesting that the same folks who will defend the dispensational system tooth and nail will on another thread appeal to the justice system of a past dispensation in order to substantiate their system of justice in the present dispensation.
Whatever happened to testing things that differ?




This is not so. Atheism is a religion of sorts. It is a belief that there is not God and by extension no moral absolutes. The vast majority of atheists are very liberal but even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Do you even know the vast majority of atheists? What data do you have other than your assertion that substantiates this. I was a member of the Campus Atheists and vice president of the college Republicans at the same time. And most of the folks I knew who were atheists were political conservatives.



I have no doubt that there are aberrations to what one would expect to see normally. Once again my statement is a generality.

And a false generality at that. Granted most evangelicals are conservatives, but the obverse isn’t true. There are oodles of conservatives who aren’t saved. They are practicing atheists if not philosophical atheists.




Oh yes they are. Name one Godly thing that is not conservative or vice versa. Go ahead, try to name one.


Anti-choice (abortion) – Godly: Supported by both right wing and left wing politicians. And the opposite is true as well, there are political conservatives who are pro choice.

Death penalty for murderers – Godly: Again not purely divided down partisan lines.

Low taxes – Godly: Are you serious? Jesus couldn’t have cared less about how much Caesar taxed. Jesus said render unto Caesar what was Caesars’ I’ll like to see you post one verse that clearly describes low taxes as a mandate from God. Don’t get me wrong, I appose excess taxation philosophically, but Its not a scriptural mandate. Of course, we could always go back to the 30% flat tax as it was instituted in the Old Testament. Something tells me some conservatives would gripe at this to.

Freedom – Godly: Yea, the right wingers hate that freedom stuff. I’m a conservative and I know this is a straw man.

Anti homo – Godly: God wasn’t anti homo, He was anti-Homosexuality. He was anti any sin, but for the redemption of the sinner. While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8)

Anti euthanasia – Godly: Not a uniquely partisan issue.

Pro Military – Godly: Pro Peace. God.



I could go on and on and on. Can you think of even one single major issue that would not fit into this pattern?

Yea, how about stewardship over God’s creation?


Grace and Peace

1Way
May 19th, 2004, 04:36 AM
BChristianK – Instead of wading through your entire last post (too much assumption and misunderstanding), I’ll try to summarize the differences in understanding and clear up the major misunderstandings and go from there. Thanks for responding so thoroughly, and please feel free to call my attention to something important that this post does not cover sufficiently.

I do not simply use 1Co for shunning, that is only for shunning those with professing faith in God (for righteousness). I simply do not apply that teaching further than the scope it naturally covers. Christians still rightly judge and condemn the world even though they can not shun them away from the body of believers since they are already not part of the body of believers in the first place. So we can eat with the sinners and tax collectors because they put on no pretense of being a believer.

Jesus eating with the tax collectors and sinners. This is true, but does not lend to your argumentation. Jesus would accept anyone if they are receptive to godly teachings. When Jesus came across sin, He never accepted the sin, it always has to be dealt with in a righteous way. So I say that he was ministering to the sick and needy, but if they started to deny Jesus and sin right in front of Him, He would have opposed them for it.

A rebuke is for those caught in an offense where they are not otherwise yielding to righteous correction and is more called for as the issue is more important or urgent, or both. Eating with the sinners was hardly a reason for Jesus to rebuke, they needed the truth to set them free from the sinful ways, and to the extent that they were willing to listen, Jesus was only right to be of service. Had they become a sinful offense, He would have rebuked and rejected them instantly.

Judging the world
You said, right, when will that happen. That is a nonsequitor. I presented ideas that occur in the past present and future, so when they happen is not in question.

Opinions verses judgments
You can take your BDAG and toss it on this issue, because it is non-sense to think that God is teaching that we should make our opinions known on all things. God says that it is the prudent man who withholds some knowledge, it is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but even the fool is shrewd if he holds his tongue. We who are spiritual are to judge all things, not become a babbler of personal opinion.

Universalizing Christian accountability
I don’t do that. What is universal is right and wrong and that the righteous oppose evil and cling to the good (personally accept good, and personally reject evil). It is evil to accept what is evil no matter if they are a believer or not. You can not send an unbeliever outside the body of believers for the sake that the devil might buffet them since the devil is already happy with the unbeliever, such shunning is not possible to do unless you are a self professing believer in God for righteousness.

Covenants vrs absolutes
You said Yea, as turbo and I have been discussing, I disagree. I think that the “homo’s commit a capital crime,” crowd are trying to mix covenants. The sentences of capital offenses in the book of Leviticus have been commuted in Christ. To single homosexuality out as an exception to that rule is inconsistent. God did not repeal the death penalty, capitol offenses remain capitol offenses. Repealing a covenant agreement does not repeal laws that are not repealed.

servent101
May 19th, 2004, 06:07 AM
1Way
I think

:darwinsm:

I would say think about it – but it is obvious you need to go back to the drawing board.

Please do not take too much offense – but you need the rebuke.

You do not think – you simply have acquired an orthodox mindset – what ever is in the closed canon of Christian Scripture – you take literally – whatever is not in the closed canon of Christian Scripture – you ignore and say it is from the Devil.

If you could think – you would make apology for your wayward ways and you would be remorseful over your mindless energy feed concerning the Written Word of God.



With Christ’s Love

Servent101

adajos
May 19th, 2004, 06:21 AM
Clete:

BChristianK has already responded very well to much of your last post. Here's my two cents anyway.


To whatever extent you are Godly you are right-wing or conservative. I cannot think of a single exception but I suppose that doesn't mean there aren't any.

You need to broaden your horizons then.

Furthermore, as much as you would love to characterize your argument as Biblical, it just isn't.


I do not subordinate Godliness to politics. As you have pointed out I said just the reverse.
Why do acknowledge what I say then intentionally argue as though I said something else?

Actually, yes you do. You have said yourself that you don't think it's possible to be godly and not be politically conservative. Now godliness is contingent upon political opinions---it has thus been subordinated to politics.


left-wing politics are not Godly, and anyone who holds to left-wing principles are to that extent ungodly. That doesn't mean that your aren't a Christian if you hold to liberal ideologies, it just means you're not a very good one.

Your unsubstantiated opinion fails to impress me. How's that Biblical in any way?



You have fused the Kingdom of God and Kingdom of Man together to such a degree that you cannot recognize what is God's and what is man's.

Not to any more of an extent than God Himself has. It is He would said put the murderer to death. It is He who wrote the Ten Commandments, which nearly every law in all of western civilization is based upon in one way or another.
The law defines for a society what they hold to be right and wrong. Laws are defined and codified via the political system and thus beliefs about what is right and what is wrong drive the political machine.

What laws of the Ten Commandments are supported by modern American political conservatives that are not supported by modern American liberals?


They are moral issues in the context of government. A government that does not provide for the defense and infrastructure of the nation is an evil nation and God will hold the governing officials responsible for the harm they do to their citizens.

I don't remember any Biblical requirements for the gov't to provide infrastructure.

I don't deny that there are moral issues in governing however.



Christianity is about so much more than morality as well.

Really? Christianity has primarily to do with having a relationship with God.
1. Does God accept me?
2. On what basis does He do so?

Sounds pretty much like morality to me.

Actually sin and immorality are not necessarily the same thing.

From dictionary.com


mo·ral·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-rl-t, mô-)
n. pl. mo·ral·i·ties
1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.

Note that correlation to morality and action. Sins don't necessarily involve outward action---lust and envy for instance.

There is overlap between sin and immorality to be sure, but morality deals with the realm of interhuman behavior, whereas sin is merely selfish, prideful behavior contrary to God's intentions.

Even so, Christianity is more than just a list of don't or even a list of do's. It's about a personal relationship with God.



What about liberals who believe in objective right and wrong? For instance, one of my old college history professors who was one of the most sincere Christian people I have ever known, who voted Democrat in every election and was a moderate left-winger?

To what ever extent he was a left-winger, he was ungodly. Do you think that it was a godly thing for him to have voted for Bill Clinton? I certainly don't!

I can't think of any Biblical requirements outlining who godly or ungodly to vote for, can you?



Nope. Why are there atheists who vote right-wing and atheists who vote left-wing then? There's no religious distinction between them.

This is not so. Atheism is a religion of sorts. It is a belief that there is not God and by extension no moral absolutes. The vast majority of atheists are very liberal but even a broken clock is right twice a day. This is why I acknowledged that religion and politics are not precisely the same thing because even if an evil person utilizes a godly principle they will benefit from it. So it not that liberals are incapable of doing anything that might be considered right-wing but that they do not do them for the same reasons.

Whether you want to call atheism a religion or not is your business. It's not germane to the argument. I made my original point because you claimed that there is a religious divide between political conservatives and liberals. However, that's incorrect. Politics and religion are not the same thing.

Further, what about atheists who recognize moral absolutes. My friend to whom I referred believes strongly in moral absolutes.


I have no doubt that there are aberrations to what one would expect to see normally. Once again my statement is a generality. However, your friend is internally conflicted and inconsistent because he cannot say that the left-wing is wrong for any reason that is consistent with his belief that people have evolved from slime and that there is no absolute moral standard.

No need to reply to this differently than my preceeding post other than to say that atheists don't categorically deny moral absolutes.

In studying the philosophy of ethics you'll find that many atheists believe that morality is derived from the natural laws of the universe, and thus is outside of man, and objective.


Quite right. You are pouring more into my words than what I am saying. To whatever extent a liberal believes that there are moral absolutes then to that extent he is conservative or right-wing. There is admittedly a spectrum here, the right side of which is defined by God and the left by Hillary. There is no one to the right of God, period.

Look, I'm no fan of Hillary Clinton. Offhand I can't think of a single idea of hers that I agree with. But I don't give my disagreement with her the status of religious truth revealed by God.

Are you seriously equating her with Satan?

BTW, you haven't studied political theory very much have you? The political spectrum is like a horseshoe---extreme right and extreme left are like the ends of the horseshoe---as each side gets more extreme, the more similar they get. That's how you end up with left-wing totalitarian regimes like in the Soviet Union and right-wing totalitarian regimes like the Third Reich that aren't that far apart.


Oh yes they are. Name one Godly thing that is not conservative or vice versa. Go ahead, try to name one.

Anti-choice (abortion) – Godly
Death penalty for murderers – Godly
Low taxes – Godly
Freedom – Godly
Anti homo – Godly
Anti euthanasia – Godly
Pro Military - Godly

Pro Choice – Ungodly
Voting for Bill Clinton – Ungodly
Voting for George Bush – Ungodly
Pro-abortion – Ungodly
High taxes – Ungodly
Big Government – Ungodly
Welfare – Ungodly

I could go on and on and on. Can you think of even one single major issue that would not fit into this pattern? I don’t think you can. This is why when people list the things they don’t like to talk about, they always say religion AND politics. This is because they are basically the same subject.

Wow, I almost don't even know where to start here, there's so many problems with this. OK, let's assume you're correct for a minute and that those political issues are somehow inherently godly or ungodly.

Here's some left wing issues that are godly:

Civil Rights movement/desegregation of the 1950s and 1960s
Feminism in the early part of the 20th century getting women the right to vote
The Abolitionist movement that freed the slaves---clearly more progressive than conservative
Protecting the environment


So that alone blows your theory and your challenge out of the water.

How do you figure Big Gov't and Welfare are ungodly? Impractical, perhaps--ineffective, certainly. But how are they ungodly?

The point is, most political issues are not inherently godly or ungodly---they are just in different places on a spectrum of practicality and effectiveness. It just so happens in my opinion that most of the conservative ideas work the best.

One final word---the modern American labels of liberal and conservative aren't really meaningful much more than one hundred years in the past. Washington, Adams, and Jefferson were considered liberals in their time---classic liberals. Perhaps you could determine how Christians in the Middle Ages measured godliness prior to the existence of conservatism or liberalism as we use the terms.

Clete
May 19th, 2004, 07:22 AM
I believe that you guys are intentionally trying to misunderstand my point and so I am only going to respond in a very limited way at let this one go. I do not like wasting my time.


Civil Rights movement/desegregation of the 1950s and 1960s
While there may be people who wear the conservative label that didn't like desegregation that does not mean they were or are conservative on this issue. Racial discrimination is an extremely liberal mindset. Take Hitler as perhaps the most extreme example. The left-wing historical revisionists like to refer to Hitler as being far right but any thinking person knows otherwise. He was a socialist and a racist.
There is simply no way to reconcile racism with the conservative mindset of a world in which there are moral absolutes.


Feminism in the early part of the 20th century getting women the right to vote
This such a complex issue that I hardly think that it qualifies as either right-wing or left-wing. There are aspects of both.
Women are of course equal to men from an ontological point of view so from the stand point of treating woman as equals instead of second class citizens, this would be a conservative issue. However, voting (democracy) is not a idea anyone got from God. On the contrary, God reacted rather negatively to such ideas in the Bible so giving woman the vote only compounded one of America's primary failings in that democracies are doomed to fail and the more democratic a nation becomes the quicker they will self destruct from within. Thus, Democracy itself is a liberal ideology, and therefore so is giving woman the vote.


The Abolitionist movement that freed the slaves---clearly more progressive than conservative
No it isn't! Race based slavery is racism. Racism is not Godly and it is certainly not conservative. As I said a moment ago, it is the liberals who like racism. Jesse Jackson for example is as racist as anyone alive and at the very same time he is as liberal as they get.


Protecting the environment
And again, this is not, I repeat, NOT a liberal issue. What we are used to calling environmentalism has almost nothing to do with the environment. It has to do with the curtailment of private property rights and the seizing of power. Land ownership is in many ways foundational to genuine freedom. I won't bother establishing this, it should be somewhat intuitive anyway. The point is, no conservative is trying to destroy the planet, which we wouldn't be allowed to do even if we wanted to try. Indeed it is quite the reverse. When this country first really started down the road to real prosperity there can be no doubt that we made quite a mess. However, the higher standard of living people are able to afford, the less mess they want around them and so we cleaned up and I submit that the EPA has done nothing to help in this direction. If anything they have hampered our progress in this area. The point being is that conservatives do not want to see pollution any more than liberals do. Indeed, it is the conservatives who are actually doing something real about the problems that actually exist while the environmentalists are freaking out about problems that aren't even real that they've make up in order to have a political impact rather than an environmental one.

And as for Duder being against the war. This is a left-wing position and it is an ungodly one. If he had some moral ground upon which he opposed this particular war because it was in some way an unjust war then that might be different depending upon whether his reasoning for calling it unjust was sound. But the way you present it, he is apparently apposed to all war, which is clearly unbiblical and wrong, morally wrong.

And one final note. As I was writing this, I realized that I much prefer the term 'right-wing' over 'conservative' because I realize that the definition of conservative can and has changed over the years to a much larger degree than has "right-wing". "Right-Wing" has more consistently been associated with the concept of moral absolutes and thus better illustrates my original point in having brought this subject up to begin with which was simply to point out that religion has to do with what we believe and our politics are determined by those beliefs and that religion and politics are therefore basically two sides of the same coin.

Resting in Him,
Clete

smaller
May 19th, 2004, 07:35 AM
Osama bin Laden=Lion, son of destruction.

God has purposes with all things. Osama is no exception.

Homosexuals are no exception.

adajos
May 19th, 2004, 08:19 AM
Clete:


I believe that you guys are intentionally trying to misunderstand my point and so I am only going to respond in a very limited way at let this one go. I do not like wasting my time.

So you step back from your outrageous claims that "godliness" equals "conservative political positions" and address the peripheral matters? It's the implications of combining politics and faith that are the most disturbing, but apparently you don't want to talk about that--you'd rather label issues and people and discuess that.

I really wish you'd address the substance of BChristianK and my posts---but I understand why you'd want to avoid the difficulty of defending an untenable position.

Clete on racial segregation and the Civil Rights movement:


While there may be people who were the conservative label that didn't like desegregation that does not mean they were or are conservative on this issue. Racial discrimination is an extremely liberal mindset. Take Hitler as perhaps the most extreme example. The left-wing historical revisionists like to refer to Hitler as being far right but any thinking person knows otherwise. He was a socialist and a racist.
There is simply no way to reconcile racism with the conservative mindset of a world in which there are moral absolutes.


Racial discrimination is not unique to either the left or right wings.
Racial discrimination is not unique to liberalism.
Hitler was right wing
There have been many ways to reconcile racism with the conservative view of the world in which moral absolutes exist--the same is true of the liberal view of the world. Don't you realize that Strom Thrumond, who was right-wing ran for President on a segregationist platform?
The Civil Rights movement was driven primarily by the left---yes, there were some conservatives in favor, but there were also some opposed to it.


Clete on giving women the right to vote:


This such a complex issue that I hardly think that it qualifies as either right-wing or left-wing. There are aspects of both.
Women are of course equal to men from an ontological point of view so from the stand point of treating woman as equals instead of second class citizens, this would be a conservative issue. However, voting (democracy) is not a idea anyone got from God. On the contrary, God reacted rather negatively to such ideas in the Bible so giving woman the vote only compounded one of America's primary failings in that democracies are doomed to fail and the more democratic a nation becomes the quicker they will self destruct from within. Thus, Democracy itself is a liberal ideology are so therefore is giving woman the vote.

Again, to an extent this issue isn't partisan. But it was driven by progressives of the day.

I notice how the idea of treating women as equals "ontologically" is a conservative idea. So your definition of a "conservative idea" is apparently anything that you personally agree with.

What Biblical support do you have for the idea that God dislikes democracy?

Clete on the Abolitionist movement:


No it isn't! Race based slavery is racism. Racism is not Godly and it is certainly not conservative. As I said a moment ago, it is the liberals who like racism. Jesse Jackson for example is as racist as anyone alive and at the very same time he is as liberal as they get.

Yes, there is racism on the left and on the right. You claim that racism is a liberal thing and that's just hogwash.

This leads us to another big problem with your fusion of religion and politics. God and the Bible are rightly considered infallible. But when politics is tightly interwoven with Christianity, then political issues or parties take on the infallibility of the Bible. In this case, you are unwilling to acknowledge that it's quite possible to be conservative (AKA "godly") and racist at the same time.

Unfortunately for you case, there are many examples of conservatives who are racist. Thurmond, Duke, etc were right-wing racists. No doubt you will blindly continue to claim that the "conservative" position is the one you espouse and that conservatives who supported issues you dislike aren't really conservative.

You really should step back and view your argument objectively though. I think you'll find it holds as much water as a sieve.

Clete on Environmentalism:


And again, this is not, I repeat, NOT a liberal issue. What we are used to calling environmentalism has almost nothing to do with the environment. It has to do with the curtailment of private property rights and the seizing of power. Land ownership is in many ways foundational to genuine freedom. I won't bother establishing this, it should be somewhat intuitive anyway. The point is, no conservative is trying to destroy the planet, which we wouldn't be allowed to do even if we wanted to try. Indeed it is quite the reverse. When this country first really started down the road to real prosperity there can be no doubt that we made quite a mess. However, the higher standard of living people are able to afford, the less mess they want around them and so we cleaned up and I submit that the EPA has done nothing to help in this direction. If anything they have hampered our progress in this area. The point being is that conservatives do not want to see pollution any more than liberals do. Indeed, it is the conservatives who are actually doing something real about the problems that actually exist while the environmentalists are freaking out about problems that aren't even real that they've make up in order to have a political impact rather than an environmental one.

So you disagree with the left-wing approach to environmentalism. Great--I do too to an extent. But why is it ungodly just because you think it's impractical? If holding impractical ideas makes them ungodly then surely there can be no more ungodly of an idea that recriminalizing homosexuals as Enyart wants to do!!


And as for Duder being against the war. This is a left-wing position and it is an ungodly one. If he had some moral ground upon which he opposed this particular war because it was in some way an unjust war then that might be different depending upon whether his reasoning for calling it unjust was sound. But the way you present it, he is apparently apposed to all war, which is clearly unbiblical and wrong, morally wrong.

Since Amish, Quakers, and Mennonites are usually pacifists I guess those groups are less godly than other conservative denominations like Baptists or Evangelical Free eh?

BTW, I'm sure Duder has specific reasons why this war is an unjust war.


And one final note. As I was writing this, I realized that I much prefer the term 'right-wing' over 'conservative' because I realize that the definition of conservative can and has changed over the years to a much larger degree than has "right-wing". "Right-Wing" has more consistently been associated with the concept of moral absolutes and thus better illustrates my original point in having brought this subject up to begin with which was simply to point out that religion has to do with what we believe and our politics are determined by those beliefs and that religion and politics are basically two sides of the same coin.

The term "right-wing" only makes sense for the last century--just as "conservative" does. How was a Christian's godliness measured before any such notion?

Clete, you are displaying ignorance of both politics and religion by your positions. Your interwoven tapestry of politics and Christianity harms Christianity by elevating non-essentials of the faith to the status of measuring godliness.

Clete
May 19th, 2004, 08:49 AM
adajos,

I believe that you attempting to piss me off, and you have succeeded.

You have repeatedly put words in my mouth and I have repeated told you that I do not mean what you are suggesting and yet you insist on arguing for the sake of arguing.

Do you deny that the positions one takes on political issues are determined by ones world view?

If you deny this your are stupid or a liar, it is plainly obvious.

Do you also deny that your world view is determined by your religious beliefs?

Again, you would have to intentionally lie in order to deny such an obvious fact.

If you politics are determined by your worldview and your worldview is determined by you religious beliefs then your politics are determined by your religious beliefs.

It is obvious and simple. Liberal ideologies are generally based upon an ungodly worldview and are therefore generally ungodly and vise versa.

adajos
May 19th, 2004, 09:21 AM
Clete:


I believe that you attempting to piss me off, and you have succeeded.

Actually I wasn't attempting that. I was addressing your fallacious argument. If you can't handle it, then don't advance arguments you know people will attack.

I notice that you get upset alot on this board when people disagree with you---usually you call them "stupid", "idiots", and "morons". Seems like you might need to relax a bit--disagreement on internet forums is inevitable.


You have repeatedly put words in my mouth and I have repeated told you that I do not mean what you are suggesting and yet you insist on arguing for the sake of arguing.

Yet you don't cite even one specific instance of me creating a strawman. Care to do so?


Do you deny that what positions one takes on political issues are determined by ones world view?

Nope.


If you deny this your are stupid and a liar, it is plainly obvious.

More pointless name calling.


Do you also deny that your world view is determined by your religious beliefs?

I deny that your worldview is determined solely by your religious beliefs. Your worldview is influenced by your religious beliefs and possibly several other factors. Do you deny that there can be elements of a "worldview" that are not determined by religious beliefs?


Again, you would have to intentionally lie in order to deny such an obvious fact.

I'm not lying.


If you politics are determined by your worldview and your worldview is determined by you religious beliefs then your politics are determined by your religious beliefs.

Other factors aside from religious faith, like personal experience go into determining a worldview. So it makes sense that people with very similar faith can arrive at different political conclusions because of differing experience, personality, etc.

That doesn't automatically make those different political conclusions ungodly as you would desparately like to do.


It is obvious and simple. Liberal ideologies are generally based upon an ungodly worldview and are therefore generally ungodly and vise versa.

Still wrong. Politics and religion aren't the same, and so it's not obvious that "liberal" equals "ungodly" and vice versa. It's only obvious and simple in your mind.

Why is it so important that Christians agree with you on matters of public policy? I know you're gonna change the question and say "It's important to me that Christians agree with the Bible on matters of public policy", but claiming that disagreeing with you on environmental issues is ungodly and in disagreement with the Bible is patently false.

You don't seem to understand the difference between the Bible being infallible and in your interpretation of the Bible being fallible.

Clete
May 19th, 2004, 09:40 AM
I did not say that your world view is based SOLELY on your religious beliefs. That is why I have repeatedly said that "Liberal ideologies are generally based upon an ungodly worldview and are therefore generally ungodly and vise versa."

The straw man you are fighting is the one where you insist that I am saying anything more than this.

And by the way, I call people names like stupid when they are being that. You'll take notice of the word "IF" in my statements concerning your potential stupidity.

adajos
May 19th, 2004, 09:57 AM
Clete:


I did not say that your world view is based SOLELY on your religious beliefs. That is why I have repeadely said that "Liberal ideologies are generally based upon an ungodly worldview and are therefore generally ungodly and vise versa."

The staw man you are fighting is the one where you insist that I am saying anything more than this.

Since you agree that politics are based on worldview and worldview is not solely based on religious faith, then why do you assert that godliness is practically contingent upon political opinions? After all, faith is not the only thing that influences worldview, so it seems like godly people can have lots of room for political disagreement--and that that disagreement doesn't affect their godliness.

Deny that you said that all you want but here it is:


To whatever extent you are Godly you are right-wing or conservative. I cannot think of a single exception but I suppose that doesn't mean there aren't any.

That's more than generally as you suggest above. That means, you can conceive of an exception to your "Christians ought to be conservative claim", but you haven't run across one--thus for all practical purposes "liberal" = ungodly.

But this conclusion is clearly wrong since more goes into influencing a worldview than religious faith.

Dimo
May 19th, 2004, 10:50 AM
Poly posted:

I agree with Clete's view. I'm sick of Him being made out to be a wimp or a good ol' grandpa in the sky. Yes His is loving but He is also rightous, just and holy. He cannot look upon sin and expects the same from us.
So let's get off the fence. What is your view of God? Do you agree or disagree with Clete? Give reasoning or scripture for your vote.

Dimo:

Poly, where does it say in the Bible that God cannot look upon sin? If this were true he would never see our sins.

Clete's opinion:

If you think I'm a right wing extremist, wait till you meet God. If you have a problem with me, you're not going to like God at all! I'm just a lame little Teddy bear compared to God. All I can do is post on this web site and shun as many homos as I come in contact with. The awesome living God, on the other hand, not only is the one who created the universe by the power of His spoken word and has the power to throw your soul into eternal fire, but He also happens to be the ultimate right wing conservative wacko extremist of the universe! And He does not like people who try to ride fences.
I suggest you pick a side and get on it!

Rev 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.


Dimo:

I agree that my judgement and justice cannot compare to God's. I hope that God is nothing like Clete. I also hope that God judges Clete with reason, despite Clete's inability to do the same. I do not believe that God is a nice old man with a grey beard. I do believe that God will use each of our own standards to judge us when the time comes.

Duder
May 19th, 2004, 10:51 AM
Adajos -

An obvious counterexample to Clete's thesis would be the Social Gospel movement of the early to mid-twentieth century here in the United States. It was a Christian liberal movement that promoted the idea that public funds and energies ought to be used to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick and educate the ignorent.

A mere half centry ago, the political face of Christianity was as liberal as it is today conservative..

Aimiel
May 19th, 2004, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by Dimo

Poly posted:

I agree with Clete's view. I'm sick of Him being made out to be a wimp or a good ol' grandpa in the sky. Yes His is loving but He is also rightous, just and holy. He cannot look upon sin and expects the same from us.
So let's get off the fence. What is your view of God? Do you agree or disagree with Clete? Give reasoning or scripture for your vote.

Dimo:

Poly, where does it say in the Bible that God cannot look upon sin?Answer: on one of Its pages.

For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

I don't believe that God can see sin. I believe that His Vision is greater than that, since sin is temporary, and The Lord is Eternal. He is Holy, and Perfect.

Dimo
May 19th, 2004, 11:00 AM
Aimiel posted:

I don't believe that God can see sin. I believe that His Vision is greater than that, since sin is temporary, and The Lord is Eternal. He is Holy, and Perfect.

Dimo:

I agree with the second and third sentences. I do not believe that this verse says the same as what Poly posted:

"For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption."

It says "suffer thine Holy One to see corruption", not "can't see sin". Is sin the same as corruption? At any rate can you answer my other question;

If God cannot see sin, how can he judge it?

geralduk
May 19th, 2004, 11:04 AM
The life of ISIAH was up to a certain point as a m an of God who spoke the message of God yet when he saw the lORD "hIGH AND LIFTED UP and His train filling the temple" then he REPENTED in sacklth and ashes.
When Moses first came into contact with God he fell on his face in terror.
When John heard and voice behind him anmd turned and saw Him who is the alpha and omega he fell as one dead onto his face.
We have to LOW a veiw of God and would think that we can put Him into the pocket of our own miserable interelect.and encomapss Him about with the wisdom of men.
It is when the CHURCH gets a right veiw of GOD and THEN a right veiw of herself she will find that she will begin to PRAY in ERNEST and God will THEN hear her and forgive her sins and heal the land.

Clete
May 19th, 2004, 11:08 AM
Since you agree that politics are based on worldview and worldview is not solely based on religious faith, then why do you assert that godliness is practically contingent upon political opinions?

I don't. You are ready to much into it. I have never said that one cannot hold to some particular liberal ideal if they are otherwise right-wing in their thinking. However, you still have yet to give a good example of single major political issue that is fundamentally liberal in nature and is at the same time godly. They simply do not exist.
This is not to say that someone who is evil cannot hold to right-wing ideas. A perfect example is a guy named Glenn Beck. He is a nationally known conservative radio talk show host. He himself is an amazingly evil guy. He is a pagan (actually he's a Mormon, but that is the same thing, the point is he doesn't worship the true and living God or His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ). His political views are extremely conservative. And now, get ready and really concentrate because what I'm about to say is my entire point, if you miss it, then you'll have proven yourself to be too obtuse to bother with any longer. GLEN BECK IS EVIL HIS POSITIONS ON POLITICAL ISSUES ARE GODLY! So I don't want to hear any more about how I equate one's political views with their godliness. Glen's political views are in fact godly and conservative but he is certainly not.

So I say again. One's political views are determined by what one believes to be right and wrong and what one believes to be right and wrong in many ways defines one's religious beliefs and thus one's political views are undeniable effected and in many cases determined by one's religious beliefs.
That is so plainly obvious that it simply ridiculous that I've had to repeat myself so many times. What else is there that would make something right-wing or left-wing if the concept of right and wrong are left out of the equation? That is the equation! If you are left-wing then you think that it is morally wrong to make people earn the money they need to eat. You can say something similar for every single issue that comes up. Duder thinks that it is morally wrong to be at war with Iraq, I think it is morally wrong for Jesse Jackson to say the racist things that he says. God thinks that it is morally wrong to keep people alive who should be executed and to execute people that should be allowed to live. And by the way, God happens to be on the conservative side of every single issue, that’s what makes that side of the issue right-wing.

Resting in Him,
Clete

BChristianK
May 19th, 2004, 11:10 AM
1way said:

I do not simply use 1Co for shunning, that is only for shunning those with professing faith in God (for righteousness). I simply do not apply that teaching further than the scope it naturally covers.If you are taking the verse beyond the shunning of those with a professing faith in God, then despite your assertion to the contrary, you are taking the teaching further than the scope it naturally covers. As I pointed out to you, Paul himself refused to judge those outside the church, he left that to the God.

Why don’t you?


Christians still rightly judge and condemn the world even though they can not shun them away from the body of believers since they are already not part of the body of believers in the first place. So we can eat with the sinners and tax collectors because they put on no pretense of being a believer.

Judge in what way? There are many nuances to the Greek words krinw and anikirinw As I stated. Now your reply to these distinctions was:

You can take your BDAG and toss it on this issue…..

My translation of this would be, “don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up.”
If the tenor of this debate is as you said it is:

The tenor of this debate from both sides of the discussion is that God’s word is right and authoritative and as such invokes the reasonable assumption that both parties are (to some extent) adherents thereof.

Then we should be careful not to extend a passage farther than its reach as I fear you have done with 1 Corinthians 5:11 and we should likewise be careful to understand the nuances of the words that the bible employs if we claim to care what bible really says versus what we can make it say to prove our points. Don’t you agree?


Jesus eating with the tax collectors and sinners. This is true, but does not lend to your argumentation. Jesus would accept anyone if they are receptive to godly teachings.

That is how it lends to my point. How can Clete follow Christ’s model and extend godly teaching to anyone if he avoids all homosexuals?
There’s a whole subgroup of people that Clete will never extend Christ’s teaching to, because he won’t get close enough to them to do so.


When Jesus came across sin, He never accepted the sin, it always has to be dealt with in a righteous way. So I say that he was ministering to the sick and needy, but if they started to deny Jesus and sin right in front of Him, He would have opposed them for it.

I’m not arguing against this point.



A rebuke is for those caught in an offense where they are not otherwise yielding to righteous correction and is more called for as the issue is more important or urgent, or both. Eating with the sinners was hardly a reason for Jesus to rebuke, they needed the truth to set them free from the sinful ways…
As do we all, homosexuals included.


Concerning Judging the world, you answered my statement:


You said, right, when will that happen.
You replied

That is a nonsequitor. I presented ideas that occur in the past present and future, so when they happen is not in question.
You and Turbo need to pow wow, he disagrees with you.
Turbo quotes the same passage and says:

The saints will judge the unbelievers on judgment day according to the Law of God.

Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Do you not know that we shall judge angels? 1 Corinthians 6:2-3/ (Turbo, Post #22, Christians, criminal Justice and death penalty)

Is turbo wrong then, are we to carry out judicial sentencing now? And if so, then where is the role of the state in carrying out judicial sentence? Furthermore, why didn’t Paul tell the Corinthians to kill the wicked brother instead of shunning him?

You said:


You can take your BDAG and toss it on this issue, because it is non-sense to think that God is teaching that we should make our opinions known on all things. God says that it is the prudent man who withholds some knowledge, it is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but even the fool is shrewd if he holds his tongue. We who are spiritual are to judge all things, not become a babbler of personal opinion.
Who said anything about blurting out everything we believe, that is a misrepresentation of my statement.
I said:

We are not to hold those opinions due to appearances but in righteousness.
Holding an opinion and expressing an opinion are two different things. I hold all sorts of opinions you don’t know about because I haven’t expressed them, so your charge misses its mark on this argument.



Universalizing Christian accountability
I don’t do that. What is universal is right and wrong and that the righteous oppose evil and cling to the good (personally accept good, and personally reject evil). It is evil to accept what is evil no matter if they are a believer or not. You can not send an unbeliever outside the body of believers for the sake that the devil might buffet them since the devil is already happy with the unbeliever, such shunning is not possible to do unless you are a self professing believer in God for righteousness.
First, remember that this thread is about whether or not we agree with Clete, if we buy his statement or not. He said:


All I can do is post on this web site and shun as many homos as I come in contact with.

So how is this not universalizing Christian accountability? Clete, has not, as far as I have read, (maybe I missed something), amended his statement to say that it applied only to homos who were professing believers.

So....
I argued that this wasn’t the godly response contrary to his assertion, you disagreed and pointed out 1 Corinthians 5:11. I replied and drew your attention to the fact that this verse is uniquely applied to believers and you have suggested that you agree with this, at least to a certain extent, as is evidenced by your following statement:

…that is only for shunning those with professing faith in God… (taken from above)
But you still defend Clete’s universal shunning of homosexuals despite the fact that 1 Cor 5:11 doesn’t say this.
Now you say:



Covenants vrs absolutes

God did not repeal the death penalty, capitol offenses remain capitol offenses.


He didn’t. Ok, so you disagree with Turbo when he says that Christians aren’t under the law then, correct? You would argue that we are all under the law, the Christians and everyone else, right?

You would disagree with Turbo in that you would still consider Sabbath breaking a capital offense since it was in the Mosaic Covenant and "capital offenses remain capital offenses," right?

You anticipate these questions and object.



Repealing a covenant agreement does not repeal laws that are not repealed.
I’m having a little trouble comprehending this statement, (don’t worry I read my own statement and wonder sometimes if people are really getting them), but the best I can tell, you mean that repealing a covenant doesn’t mean repealing the laws that are within that covenant right?
If that is what you are saying, then this is false, that is exactly what repealing a covenant is. If it isn't then Sabbath breaking is still a capital offense and it still requires death as the punishment.
If repealing a covenant doesn't mean repealing the laws within that covenant then the Acts 9 crowd have some “esplainin’ to do’ when it comes to Sabbath keeping.



Grace and Peace

Aimiel
May 19th, 2004, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by Dimo

If God cannot see sin, how can he judge it? Sin doesn't exist in eternity. This earth is in a 'temporary flux' state, a space-time bubble, which will one day be burst. The understanding which we have of it is limited, since men have a finite number of brain cells and are trying to comprehend something which is beyond our realm. The universe is unlimited in size, but will be brought together, folded and placed in a drawer.

The Lord does not look upon 'deeds,' but the thoughts and intents of the heart. The death that men suffer is due to their sin. It is inherrent, since all men descend from sinful parents (Adam and Eve). The judgement of their nature (heart) that follows can only be avoided by having a substitutionary replacement to be judged in your place. Believers have Jesus. Others are left to face the judgement on their own.

Clete
May 19th, 2004, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by Duder

Adajos -

An obvious counterexample to Clete's thesis would be the Social Gospel movement of the early to mid-twentieth century here in the United States. It was a Christian liberal movement that promoted the idea that public funds and energies ought to be used to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick and educate the ignorent.

A mere half centry ago, the political face of Christianity was as liberal as it is today conservative..

This does not undermine my thesis. It perhaps demonstrates the tendency of the terms 'conservative' and 'liberal' to change meaning but I don't even think it does that very well and even if it did, I've already conceded that point.

What these Christian people wanted to do was liberal by the curent understadning of the term and it also happens to have been an ungodly thing that they wanted to do. You example does not undermine my thesis it demonstrates it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

LightSon
May 19th, 2004, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by adajos
... I have always been politically conservative.

Funny, you don't look "politically conservative," Captain Jack. ;)

smaller
May 19th, 2004, 11:46 AM
If adajos thinks Clete is a little scary he could dig a little further. The "Mormons" in my area are quite determined on several fronts.

LightSon
May 19th, 2004, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by smaller

When Clete and 1Way play with The Word of God it is like allowing children to play with a SHARPENED SWORD....they cut themselves...

fortunately the weapon was not a loaded gun...

AND

in the cutting process, the wickedness IN THEM has also been revealed clearly to others

amazing SWORD, that WORD eh?

You're like a one-man peanut gallery. :ha: :ha:

Clete
May 19th, 2004, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by Dimo

Poly posted:

I agree with Clete's view. I'm sick of Him being made out to be a wimp or a good ol' grandpa in the sky. Yes His is loving but He is also rightous, just and holy. He cannot look upon sin and expects the same from us.
So let's get off the fence. What is your view of God? Do you agree or disagree with Clete? Give reasoning or scripture for your vote.

Dimo:

Poly, where does it say in the Bible that God cannot look upon sin? If this were true he would never see our sins.

Clete's opinion:

If you think I'm a right wing extremist, wait till you meet God. If you have a problem with me, you're not going to like God at all! I'm just a lame little Teddy bear compared to God. All I can do is post on this web site and shun as many homos as I come in contact with. The awesome living God, on the other hand, not only is the one who created the universe by the power of His spoken word and has the power to throw your soul into eternal fire, but He also happens to be the ultimate right wing conservative wacko extremist of the universe! And He does not like people who try to ride fences.
I suggest you pick a side and get on it!

Rev 3:16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.


Dimo:

I agree that my judgement and justice cannot compare to God's. I hope that God is nothing like Clete. I also hope that God judges Clete with reason, despite Clete's inability to do the same. I do not believe that God is a nice old man with a grey beard. I do believe that God will use each of our own standards to judge us when the time comes.

I suggest you reconsider. Keep in mind that I believe in salvation by grace through faith only an that if not for the mercy of God we would all be doomed. However, if you die without Christ you will be judged by the Law and as you said, if you make a different standard that is even more harsh than the one God came up with then that's the standard by which you will be held.
Further, we are not talking about how to be a godly person or how to walk victoriously in your Christian walk or anything like that. We are talking primarily about criminal justice (although, not exclusively that). We are talking about what would God have us do with criminals and that is the context in which my statement was made.

Resting in Him,
Clete

smaller
May 19th, 2004, 11:57 AM
better than a peanut gallery commentator eh lightson?

Personally I think Clete and 1Way are pretty far out there. Many of you follow close behind.

adajos
May 19th, 2004, 12:59 PM
Clete:

Notice how your claims of misrepresentation fail to conceal your contradictions.

I said:


Since you agree that politics are based on worldview and worldview is not solely based on religious faith, then why do you assert that godliness is practically contingent upon political opinions?

To which you responded:


I don't. You are ready [reading] to much into it......

Ok, fair enough, you think I'm misrepresenting what you are saying. Problem is, one paragraph later in your same post, you say:


And by the way, God happens to be on the conservative side of every single issue, that’s what makes that side of the issue right-wing.

So essentially, God is a political conservative is what you've said. So if you're right, and God is a conservative, than how is a person's godliness not contingent upon political opinions? How would it be possible to be very godly while rejecting God's perfect, just political beliefs?

You cannot have it both ways Clete. Either political views don't relate to godliness and so godly people can be found all over the political spectrum, or God holds to certain conservative political views, and only a conservative Christian can be godly. That would be a perfect example of godliness being contingent upon political opinion.

You define an issue as "right-wing" if God supports it or not. Fascinating. "Right-wing" is not a term that God has defined--it's been defined in the politics of modern America. Why should anybody accept your definition of the term, when nobody else uses it the way you do?


However, you still have yet to give a good example of single major political issue that is fundamentally liberal in nature and is at the same time godly. They simply do not exist.

Well, you use your personal definition for the term "right-wing" that nobody else uses as we discussed above. When people on this board say "right-wing" they don't mean "God's position on the issue", they mean the politically conservative position.

If you accept the common definition of the term "right-wing", then you will see that the Civil Rights movement, among other issues I brought up where supported more by members of the left-wing as the term is understood by everyone in America but yourself. Even though you think God likes the Civil Rights movement, that doesn't make it "right-wing".

"Right-wing" does not mean "God's and Clete's position" which is correct and godly on every issue.


This is not to say that someone who is evil cannot hold to right-wing ideas. A perfect example is a guy named Glenn Beck. He is a nationally known conservative radio talk show host. He himself is an amazingly evil guy. He is a pagan (actually he's a Mormon, but that is the same thing, the point is he doesn't worship the true and living God or His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ). His political views are extremely conservative. And now, get ready and really concentrate because what I'm about to say is my entire point, if you miss it, then you'll have proven yourself to be too obtuse to bother with any longer. GLEN BECK IS EVIL HIS POSITIONS ON POLITICAL ISSUES ARE GODLY! So I don't want to hear any more about how I equate one's political views with their godliness. Glen's political views are in fact godly and conservative but he is certainly not.

I never insinuated that you meant political conservatives are inherently godly.


So I say again. One's political views are determined by what one believes to be right and wrong and what one believes to be right and wrong in many ways defines one's religious beliefs and thus one's political views are undeniable effected and in many cases determined by one's religious beliefs.

I understand what you've written. "Political views can be ungodly or godly because they flow from religious beliefs which can be godly or ungodly. So if a Christian were to hold leftist political views he would be ungodly or less godly that otherwise."

That would be a perfect example of a person's godliness being contingent upon their political views, the exact thing you denied being true in the first sentence of your post. How do you reconcile these contradictory beliefs?

When will you realize that God isn't liberal or conservative. It makes no sense to apply those labels to Him. He transcends those labels as I said in my first post on this topic.

adajos
May 19th, 2004, 01:08 PM
Duder,

Your example of the Social Gospel movement is a perfect example of something that wrecks Clete's fusion of politics and religion. My hat is off to you!

Clete is contradicting himself more than ever now. I predict he will deny it, and will claim that contradictions are only due to my misreprentation of what he says. He will then use that as an excuse to abandon the debate in a storm of anger and righteous indignation. :D

Clete's response to Duder:


This does not undermine my thesis. It perhaps demonstrates the tendency of the terms 'conservative' and 'liberal' to change meaning but I don't even think it does that very well and even if it did, I've already conceded that point.

Hold the phone. Back up the train!! Conservative = right wing. Right wing = conservative. According to Clete right wing = God's position on the political issue. See his quote:


And by the way, God happens to be on the conservative side of every single issue, that’s what makes that side of the issue right-wing.

But now you just said the definition of conservative and liberal changing meaning. But I thought God defined what was conservative like you said in your prior post.

Who defines the "right-wing", man or God? Or does God define it, and then man corrupts it? Or are you just making contradictory statements off the top of your head?

Put me down for the latter.

adajos
May 19th, 2004, 01:14 PM
LightSon:


Funny, you don't look "politically conservative," Captain Jack.

Appearences can be decieving. :D

Clete
May 19th, 2004, 02:02 PM
adajos,

It is clear now that you are simply trying to be difficult. But such is the nature of most people on this site and on this thread in particular, so be it.

You want to pick nits about the exact definition of the term right-wing or conservative or liberal and that’s fine. It is so totally simple and obvious what I'm getting at that it is truly a display of colossal willful ignorance and stupidity for you to be arguing this point. Why do you suppose it is then that people who are religious are almost uniformly conservative and that the further right they are the more prone they are to being called the “religious right”? I’m sure you right, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that they have similar worldviews and similar convictions about what is right and what is wrong. I'm sure it can't possibly have anything to do with that. It's probably just luck. It just so happens by mere chance that the overwhelming majority of religious people are also conservative. All the people who have a definite belief in an absolute morality just tripped over the fact that that BELIEF is in line with a conservative political position.

I will concede that from a certain perspective it could be said that the more liberal you are the more ungodly you are but that is roughly the same as saying the more evil ideas you have in your head the more ungodly you are because any way you care to slice it, liberalism is evil, period. If you are on the actual liberal side of an issue then you are on the evil side of that issue, period. That is as long as the word liberal means what it means today, which is the only meaning that makes any sense to use in this conversation. If one calls himself a liberal and holds to some position that happens to be godly then on that issue he is not liberal and conversely if one calls himself conservative and holds to some liberal issue then on that issue he holds to an ungodly position. This doesn't mean that he is no longer to be considered a conservative generally, because as I said several posts ago, there is clearly a spectrum between the far right and the far left.

So my point is and has always been that regardless of the title you want to give it, your political views stem from your understand of what is right and what is wrong which is determined in large measure by your religious convictions and thus politics and religion and two sides of the same coin.

Resting in Him,
Clete

servent101
May 19th, 2004, 04:26 PM
Dimo:


I agree that my judgement and justice cannot compare to God's. I hope that God is nothing like Clete. I also hope that God judges Clete with reason, despite Clete's inability to do the same. I do not believe that God is a nice old man with a grey beard. I do believe that God will use each of our own standards to judge us when the time comes.

I see the wisdom in what you post Dimo – in a way – when Jesus gave the prayer the Our Father – what the Lord said about forgiveness – was before the actual redemption of Israel – and today when we remember the Lord’s prayer we would do well to say
Our Father in Heaven, Hallowed be thy name, may thy kingdom increase, may Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven, Give us our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses, and help us to forgive those who trespass against us, Lead us on the everlasting path, and teach us Your Precepts.

There is a world of difference before and after Pentecost – and in living in the past – in trying to see that the Lord’s Prayer is in fact more reminiscent of the Old Covenant – and does not take into account what happens in the death burial and resurrection of the Lord – there is a lot that is simply not intelligent in repeating the Lord’s Prayer today – for instance if we neglect such a great of a salvation in Christ – and ask God to forgive us as we forgive others – that is simply a rejection of the Cross – and in praying for the kingdom of God to come – well at Pentecost – the Holy Spirit sealed us with the Promise of entrance to the Kingdom – and at that time for the children of Abraham – God’s Kingdom Opened.


Clete ….I suggest you reconsider. Keep in mind that I believe in salvation by grace through faith only an that if not for the mercy of God we would all be doomed. However, if you die without Christ you will be judged by the Law and as you said, if you make a different standard that is even more harsh than the one God came up with then that's the standard by which you will be held.
Further, we are not talking about how to be a godly person or how to walk victoriously in your Christian walk or anything like that. We are talking primarily about criminal justice (although, not exclusively that). We are talking about what would God have us do with criminals and that is the context in which my statement was made.

Resting in Him,
Clete

For the people in that isolated geographical location – there was no other Authorized Instruction – and to reject the Lord’s teachings would lead to more of the same – more misery, strife death etc – hell in other words – by taking the metaphors of hell literally – the everlasting fire – you severely hamper your ability to understand what is actually happening in the Ministry of the Lord – and the Nature of God – and you yourself exhibit signs of the diabolical monster you construe from the literal interpretation of the closed canon of Christian Scripture.

With Christ’s Love

Servent101

1Way
May 19th, 2004, 04:40 PM
BChristianK – You said ”If you are taking the verse beyond the shunning of those with a professing faith in God, then despite your assertion to the contrary, you are taking the teaching further than the scope it naturally covers. As I pointed out to you, Paul himself refused to judge those outside the church, he left that to the God.” I do not take this verse any further than what it teaches. We should only shun believers in order to deliver them over to Satan to buffet them in hopes of wining them back, and that is as far as this teaching goes and is as far as I take it. I do not see how I can be any more clear about that. Please, in the future, if you are having more problems understanding what I am saying, then I suggest you do the following. Quote the part that you do not understand, then say why you do not understand it, then ask whatever appropriate questions that naturally follow.

I judge the unsaved world based on the rest of the bible and a sincere desire to keep my love from the sin of hypocrisy by abhorring evil. And I do not see how I can be any more clear about that. Please quote the part that you do not understand, then say why you do not understand it, then ask whatever appropriate questions that you think might help you to understand.

BTW, your treatment of what I said about BDAG is reprehensible. I argued my case and did not simply make a claim for you ripe out of context. Here is what I actually said that you ignored. Opinions verses judgments
You can take your BDAG and toss it on this issue, because it is non-sense to think that God is teaching that we should make our opinions known on all things. God says that it is the prudent man who withholds some knowledge, it is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but even the fool is shrewd if he holds his tongue. We who are spiritual are to judge all things, not become a babbler of personal opinion. Hopefully by limited the scope and size of my posts, you will be better able to understand and stay current with the discussion.

BChristianK
May 19th, 2004, 05:36 PM
1way said:


I do not take this verse any further than what it teaches. We should only shun believers in order to deliver them over to Satan to buffet them in hopes of wining them back, and that is as far as this teaching goes and is as far as I take it.
Ok, great. So you would then agree that the following statement:

All I can do is post on this web site and shun as many homos as I come in contact with.

Needs to be qualified and amended so that it reads. “All I can do is post on this web site and shun as many homosexuals (who claim to be believers) that I can."

Agreed or not?

You say.



I do not see how I can be any more clear about that.

You can be more clear by kindly answering the previous question. And I thank you in advance for answering it in your next post.



Please, in the future, if you are having more problems understanding what I am saying, then I suggest you do the following. Quote the part that you do not understand, then say why you do not understand it, then ask whatever appropriate questions that naturally follow.

I will, I appreciate you playin' nice with us slow kids, we sometimes have problems understanding what you smarter kids are saying.
:chuckle:


I judge the unsaved world based on the rest of the bible and a sincere desire to keep my love from the sin of hypocrisy by abhorring evil.


That's great. I also assume you keep that passage in context by also attempting to bless those who persecute you instead of cursing them and endeavoring to do all you can to be at peace with all men. That would include the "homos."



And I do not see how I can be any more clear about that. Please quote the part that you do not understand, then say why you do not understand it, then ask whatever appropriate questions that you think might help you to understand.
Will do boss.
:chuckle:
That is exactly what I attempted to do in a number of instances, that as of this post, have gone unanswered.
For example, regarding when the saints will judge the world your initial response was:


That is a nonsequitor. I presented ideas that occur in the past present and future, so when they happen is not in question.

I replied:


You and Turbo need to pow wow, he disagrees with you.
Turbo quotes the same passage and says:


The saints will judge the unbelievers on judgment day according to the Law of God.


Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Do you not know that we shall judge angels? 1 Corinthians 6:2-3/ (Turbo, Post #22, Christians, criminal Justice and death penalty)



Is turbo wrong then, are we to carry out judicial sentencing now? And if so, then where is the role of the state in carrying out judicial sentence? Furthermore, why didn’t Paul tell the Corinthians to kill the wicked brother instead of shunning him?


I’m trying to keep up here 1Way, I realize I might be one of those slow kids, but in the last post, it doesn’t even appear to us slower kids that you attempted to answer those questions.

Did you not understand the question? And in the future, if you don't understand the question, would you please quote the part of the question that you do not understand, then say why you do not understand it and then ask whatever appropriate questions that naturally follow, instead of ignoring them. ;)

Here are some other questions that went totally ignored.


You said:
Covenants vrs absolutes

God did not repeal the death penalty, capitol offenses remain capitol offenses.
I replied:



[b]He didn’t. Ok, so you disagree with Turbo when he says that Christians aren’t under the law then, correct? You would argue that we are all under the law, the Christians and everyone else, right?

You would disagree with Turbo in that you would still consider Sabbath breaking a capital offense since it was in the Mosaic Covenant and "capital offenses remain capital offenses," right?

You didn’t answer these either. Maybe, instead of ignoring them, you could state what you don't understand about those questions, quote the part you don't understand and then ask ask for clarification.
;)

Here’s another:


Repealing a covenant agreement does not repeal laws that are not repealed.

First, before I continue, let me interject. I was tryin’ to cut ya some slack on this because the sentence was so poorly constructed. Instead of taking the slack, you responded with condescension. So allow me to be more clear, the sentence is a meaningless tautology.

It’s like saying “pealing a banana doesn’t mean pealing the parts that don’t peal”..


Repealing a covenant agreement does not repeal laws that are not repealed.


So what, that's obvious? Who cares?

All this sentence does is beg the question. What was repealed in the Old Covenant that is no longer applicable to us in this dispensation and what wasn't?

Turbo suggests it was all repealed.

Do you agree or not?

Hopefully limiting the scope of my questions will help you to better understand and stay current with the discussion. ;)



BTW, your treatment of what I said about BDAG is reprehensible.

You mean, my answer to your reprehensible straw-man argument was reprehensible?

Do you remember reading this?
I posted:


Who said anything about blurting out everything we believe, that is a misrepresentation of my statement.
I said:


We are not to hold those opinions due to appearances but in righteousness.

Holding an opinion and expressing an opinion are two different things. I hold all sorts of opinions you don’t know about because I haven’t expressed them, so your charge misses its mark on this argument.

I posted this in my last post. Yet you ignore it and repeated the following anyway:



I argued my case and did not simply make a claim for you ripe out of context. Here is what I actually said that you ignored.
Opinions verses judgments
You can take your BDAG and toss it on this issue, because itis non-sense to think that God is teaching that we should make our opinions known on all things. God says that it is the prudent man who withholds some knowledge, it is the glory of God to conceal a matter, but even the fool is shrewd if he holds his tongue. We who are spiritual are to judge all things, not become a babbler of personal opinion. (Bold section added by me)

You discarded the conclusion of what is perhaps the seminal lexical work on the Greek language regarding this verse and then proceeded to push down a straw-man. That’s really not much of an argument for me to ignore. But in claiming that I ignored your argument you ignored mine.

Who said anything about blurting out everything we believe, that is a misrepresentation of my statement.


If you didn't understand what I said maybe you could quote the part you don't understand.......

:chuckle:

I didn’t, as I stated earlier and contrary to your straw-man argument, claim that the passage mandated we voice our opinions on all things. In fact all the passage suggests is that when we voice our opinions, we do so in righteousness not on outward appearances. It is not a mandate to judge, is a description of how to judge.

What’s more, I claimed that the lexical usage of the word krinw as it appears in John 7:24 is the following:


2. to pass judgment upon (and thereby seek to influence) the lives and actions of other people

judge, pass judgment upon, express an opinion about… 7:24a. & pass a right judgment 7:24b.

{Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature
Third Edition, Copyright © 2000 by The University of Chicago Press}


Now you are free to disagree and think that your own analysis of the passage is more informed than the authors who published this lexicon. But you’ll excuse me if I accept over 100 years of combined Greek linguistic expertise on this passage over your opinion.

Finally you end your post with a truly patronizing statement:



Hopefully by limited the scope and size of my posts, you will be better able to understand and stay current with the discussion.


Yes, well. I’ll try to keep up ;) Please be kind enough to grant me the same courtesy.

If you could kindly answer the questions I asked, it would go along way in doing so.

Grace and Peace

adajos
May 19th, 2004, 06:15 PM
Clete:


It is clear now that you are simply trying to be difficult. But such is the nature of most people on this site and on this thread in particular, so be it.

If pointing out contradictions in your philosophy is "being difficult", so be it.

I don't think that asking you to make a consistent argument is too much to ask.


So my point is and has always been that regardless of the title you want to give it, your political views stem from your understand of what is right and what is wrong which is determined in large measure by your religious convictions and thus politics and religion and two sides of the same coin.

I have no problem with the idea you are expressing here, though I wouldn't have used the "same coin" terminology that you did. I agree with your main idea with the caveat that since there are other factors involved in influencing political opinions reasonable and godly Christians can have differences of opinion.

My problem is with your characterization of God as a political conservative, your equation of godliness to political views, and your contradictory definitions. Moving right along.....


You want to pick nits about the exact definition of the term right-wing or conservative or liberal and that’s fine.

I don't believe that it's "picking nits" to ask you to be consistent about who defines the term "right-wing." You contradicted yourself as I pointed out in my last post, but I notice you chose to ignore that.


It is so totally simple and obvious what I'm getting at that it is truly a display of colossal willful ignorance and stupidity for you to be arguing this point. Why do you suppose it is then that people who are religious are almost uniformly conservative and that the further right they are the more prone they are to being called the “religious right”? I’m sure you right, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that they have similar worldviews and similar convictions about what is right and what is wrong. I'm sure it can't possibly have anything to do with that. It's probably just luck. It just so happens by mere chance that the overwhelming majority of religious people are also conservative. All the people who have a definite belief in an absolute morality just tripped over the fact that that BELIEF is in line with a conservative political position.

This is more of the usual combination of insults and sarcasm that don't say much. Yes, evangelical Christians tend to vote conservative. No doubt that's somewhat due to religious beliefs. There are probably other factors at work though, such as what their families voted for, their personal experiences, etc.

The problem is that voting for a certain person or supporting a pro-gun policy is in not intrinsically godly per the Bible. I agree that there are certainly voting trends that can correlate to different religious denominations. But because a group of people that is considered godly votes a certain way or believes that certain policies are more effective than others in no way makes the people or the policies godly.


will concede that from a certain perspective it could be said that the more liberal you are the more ungodly you are but that is roughly the same as saying the more evil ideas you have in your head the more ungodly you are because any way you care to slice it, liberalism is evil, period.

This is ridiculous. I disagree strongly with most liberal policies. But evil ??!!

So universal healthcare, as much as I personally disagree with it, is Biblically considered evil due to what verses?


If you are on the actual liberal side of an issue then you are on the evil side of that issue, period. That is as long as the word liberal means what it means today, which is the only meaning that makes any sense to use in this conversation. If one calls himself a liberal and holds to some position that happens to be godly then on that issue he is not liberal and conversely if one calls himself conservative and holds to some liberal issue then on that issue he holds to an ungodly position. This doesn't mean that he is no longer to be considered a conservative generally, because as I said several posts ago, there is clearly a spectrum between the far right and the far left.

Uh oh. Here were are back to your pesky contradictory definitions again. You just defined liberal as equal to evil/ungodly and conservative as equal to good/godly.

Firstly, that's a bad idea because as you've pointed out the meanings of "liberal" and "conservative" change over time. What is good and evil do not. Why would you apply terms that are in flux to concepts which are unchanging?

Secondly that's a bad idea because you still contradict yourself. You still have this mistaken belief:


And by the way, God happens to be on the conservative side of every single issue, that’s what makes that side of the issue right-wing.

that God's approval makes something "right-wing". Then you combine it with the correct belief that what is considered "right-wing" changes over time via humans. Either God defines "right-wing" by approving of some policy or people define "right-wing". Which is it?

Mustard Seed
May 19th, 2004, 07:07 PM
Before I reply to the subject of the thread I was just wondering what smaller sees as the several fronts...



Originally posted by smaller

If adajos thinks Clete is a little scary he could dig a little further. The "Mormons" in my area are quite determined on several fronts.

...he believes we are determined on. Just curious as to your perception of 'our' determination.



Well on to God's politics.

First off God is a bit too omniscient to be classified into a party or even necesarily one or the other side of a relatively fluid political spectrum. True, as has been pointed out, that a number of moral issues that are relayed to us through God's word would certainly seem to, in the present US political spectrum, make it appear that leannings of God would certainly be in a specific dirrection. But it must be realized that the great problem with the primarily two party system that we have I am positive that there is never a time when there is not a great amount in either party that God is displeased with.

Many, upon seeing Utah, think that all Mormons are Republicans. I personaly am affiliated with said party but I do know several that are and have been for some time affiliated with the democratic party. While I personaly am unsure as to how exactly they reach such a position especially since some I know are very intellegent people and good members of our Faith. I will leave that between them and God.

Our church, as a policy never enters politics unless the issue directly affects us as a Church and I have never seen a candidate or party endorsed by the leadership of our church. Items such as Prop 22 in California and the same issue in Hawaii are some of the few instances in which our religion gets involved.

With regard to governments and what we believe our role in them is as members of our Church the following is a basic synopsis of our belief


12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in cobeying, honoring, and sustaining the dlaw.

(Pearl of Great Price | Articles of Faith 1:12)


From my study of the Scriptures and writtings of our prophets I believe that God sees democracy as the best form of government for us. It seems that if you could somehow guarentee that you would always have a righteous king then a monarchy would be better but since such is not atainable here democracy is the best because the government will largely remain righteous so long as a majority of the people are righteous whereas a monarchy can take a single wicked king that in turn can turn a great many of his subjects to unrighteousness.

That's the view from this Latter Day Saint (aka 'Mormon')

Clete
May 19th, 2004, 07:17 PM
adajos,

I think I may understand where our miscommunication is coming from. I really hope I'm right on this because there simply isn't anything controversial or even disputable about what I'm trying to communicate.

It is not the term "conservative" or "liberal" or even "right-wing" or "left-wing" that I'm concerned about. Its whichever side of the issue one is on that is determined by one's worldview and one's convictions about what is right and wrong (i.e. the religious beliefs).

Let me give an easy example...

Let's take abortion as our example issue since there is no dispute as to which side God is on and which side is considered conservative and right-wing in today vernacular.

Now assume its 150 year from now and that abortion in some form or another is still being debated. Assume also that the terms right-wing, left-wing, conservative and liberal all mean precisely the opposite of what they mean today.

If this were the case then God and all of those who agreed with Him that abortion is wrong would be liberal, left-wingers. So the terms would have all changed but the issue and the side of that issue one is on would not have changed and the reasons why one is on that particular side would not have changed either.

So do you see my point? It is the issues and which side of those issues one is on that has to do with religious convictions or the lack thereof, not the political title one tacks onto them.

This by the way is why the Bible is even relevant to today’s society. There is nothing new under the sun. The very same issues that we face today were being faced 4000 years ago in one form or another and the same moral principles apply to them today that did when God said, Thou shalt not steal, which, by the way, is why universal health care is wrong. It is stealing, the government takes my money under threat of law and pays some doctor to give mediocre medical treatment to a bunch of people who may or may not need it.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Duder
May 20th, 2004, 01:38 AM
In response to my comment about a Christian liberal movement the goal of which was to "feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick and educate the ignorent", Clete said

". . . it . . . also happens to have been an ungodly thing that they wanted to do."

If I have understood Clete correctly, boy, will Jesus ever be in trouble when His Dad finds out what an ongodly thing Jesus plans on doing! Seems Jesus wants to seperate the good nations from the bad as sheep from goats, the critereon being how well these nations care for their neediest members. The sheep nations will get a special blessing, while the goat nations will not fare so well.

Hey, Clete, why don't you tell Jesus' Dad about His ungodly notions? He'll straighten out that liberal little rascal, pronto!

Clete
May 20th, 2004, 06:59 AM
Originally posted by Duder

In response to my comment about a Christian liberal movement the goal of which was to "feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick and educate the ignorent", Clete said

". . . it . . . also happens to have been an ungodly thing that they wanted to do."

If I have understood Clete correctly, boy, will Jesus ever be in trouble when His Dad finds out what an ongodly thing Jesus plans on doing! Seems Jesus wants to seperate the good nations from the bad as sheep from goats, the critereon being how well these nations care for their neediest members. The sheep nations will get a special blessing, while the goat nations will not fare so well.

Hey, Clete, why don't you tell Jesus' Dad about His ungodly notions? He'll straighten out that liberal little rascal, pronto!

I know nothing of this group save what you have said on this thread. I assume that they were setting up some sort of instutionalised welfare program which is unbiblical and does more harm than good and is thus liberal and evil.
I'm sure that some of what they were doing was fine, its not my intention to be unreasably harsh. As I said I know nothing of this groups activities aside from what you have volunteered on this thread. Which by the way, was volunteered as a supposed example of conservative people doing something liberal in which case I believe my reaction to be more right than wrong. To what ever extent their action were in fact liberal, they were also ungodly. If they were feeding hungry people that were hungry because they were lazy then they were very liberal and very nice but very very evil. The Bible clearly says that if one will not work that he should not eat. If he wants to be lazy to the point of death, then so be it, he has killed himsef and in the doing he has encouraged other lazy people to get off the butts and work.

Resting in Him,
Clete

smaller
May 20th, 2004, 08:50 AM
"It's not my intention to be unreasonably harsh" says Clete as he declares that all homosexuals should be killed and those who do not advocate the killing should also be killed...

go figure...

1Way
May 20th, 2004, 09:42 AM
smaller - No one I know of except maybe a scant few extremely willfully ignorant people like yourself would even give such a patently false slander serious attention. Clete does not say that, you are a moron.

It’s a capitol crime to directly aid or support a capitol offense, not to not support capitol punishment.

A terrorist gives another terrorist the murderous order to kill thousands of people, like a commander at a concentration camp murdering thousands of Jews and I think they included murdering homosexuals (?) during the holocaust. Or like when a terrorist chief operative directed the operations of 911. Just because you do not physically commit the murder, does not mean that you are just as guilty, if not more so because of being the support behind the murder.

If you murder someone by shooting someone to death, you did not personally harm them, the bullet projectile did the dirty work, but you are still held responsible for directing that exact course of action. Does any of this make sense smallishlessnessly?

1Way
May 20th, 2004, 10:40 AM
BChristianK – You quoted Clete saying
All I can do is post on this web site and shun as many homos as I come in contact with. then you said
Needs to be qualified and amended so that it reads. “All I can do is post on this web site and shun as many homosexuals (who claim to be believers) that I can."

Agreed or not? No. If a pro-homo, like perhaps the several here in this thread, is actively seeking God’s views on the matter of homosexuality and how Christians should respond to it, I would say that it is ok to stop shunning long enough to teach the truth because at that point, the issue is not one of promotion, but one of learning. Manifestly Clete believes the same thing because we have not been arguing with people who agree with us... We’ve been arguing with folks who are to one degree or another pro-homo, yet we have been engaging in willful dialogue all this time! And we have also engaged in a certain amount of ridicule, so it’s shunning and witnessing, both. Also part of the mix is that we are sharing our faith at the same time with many who are uncertain or who are not pro-homo, so we are not being hypocritical by addressing these issues and to some extent have been allowing pro-homo type arguments against our views. So it’s not simply an issue of pure personal rejection, otherwise discussions like this could never happen.

You said
That's great. I also assume you keep that passage in context by also attempting to bless those who persecute you instead of cursing them and endeavoring to do all you can to be at peace with all men. That would include the "homos." You assume correctly but I think you assume wrongly about what that means. Being at peace does not mean without offense, it means without causing unjustifiable offense. Concerning peace with our fellow man, we are to never violate God’s character and ways, that is, we are to never treat others unjustly, unlovingly, unrighteously, or with sin or evil. At the same time, it is EVIL to not oppose evil with godly abhorrence, which often is lived out in a very upsetting and non-peaceful fashion in terms of being nice and polite, yet the peace of God through reliance upon Him and His ways is what causes such a non-peaceful disturbance, and what causes us to be at peace with God because of the comforting of the HS for doing right and risking the consequences. Bob Enyart says it well about an activist slogan against abortion, I paraphrase, there will be no peace and tranquility on my watch while babies are being led to the slaughter. Implied teaching. And it is the peace of God for the love and righteousness for the innocent that commands us to break the common peace that the murderers would otherwise like to enjoy. So you say peace, and I think we may not agree as to what that idea means. The peace of God causes all kinds of unrest and even violent opposition from the wicked. We are responsible for not creating an unjustifiable offense, but if the righteous judgment against something wrong or bad creates a non-peaceful response, then the responder is the guilty party, not the righteous judge. It is he who is wise who will love you if you rebuke him. The impetus is more upon the proper response, not the delivery. A righteous rebuke has no need to be given in a non harsh or kind way. Yet along the scale of various way to expose an offense, nicer and kinder is a good preference, but is optional with rebuke. I hope that explains things.

You quoted a question that brought me and Turbo into comparison and asked me if I understood the question. That was not the question I was answering, this is the first time I’ve seen that question. But I grant that you probably did not do that on purpose, it was I who did not clarify what I was specifically answering. It was a general response to your general line of reasoning, not a specific response to your new question. Much of your previous posts have been so filled with problems of misunderstanding that I stopped answering your post before I got to your similar question because I am getting sick and tired of working against so many misunderstandings. I am seeking to get things clear before moving on to so many different issues.

The Christian’s yet future judgment (that will happen come judgment day when the world and the angles will be judged) is to be proceeded “so much more so” with judgment of things in “this life”. The operative reflexive comparison is one of time, then verses now, not subject, men verses ideas or whatever. This is supported by the tenor of the entire bible that we should abhor that which is evil and generally “separate” ourselves from, and not “associate” ourselves with, sin. Also we have the correspondence of subjects on both halves of the immediate comparison. We should now live in accordance to the righteous judgment that the world is unworthy to judge us because of their ungodliness, but we should judge ourselves to be fully fit to judge amongst our selves. So 1Co 5-6 does not restrict judgment to only being within the brethren, it promotes righteous judgment for all.

Judging has different connotations and moral relationships despite having the same word root.
1Co 11:31 For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. For if we would judge (Str#1252 diakrino) ourselves,

we would not be judged (Str#2919 krino).

According to Strong’s
Dia = a primary preposition denoting the channel of an act; meaning various forms of “through”, time, place, means, grounds or reason, as in by reason of, or on account of, which seems fitting for this use.

So if we would (on account of “krino”) ourselves, we would not be krino

Pretty interesting deal. This demonstrates glaringly loud that judgment is good and if done righteously can preclude future judgment of doing wrong.

As to Turbo, all I see is that he agrees with me. I do not read into what He said as being in any way in disagreement with what I am saying. Next time you see a problem that you do not understand, please not only copy and paste the text, don’t forget to specify the exact problem.

You said
Here are some other questions that went totally ignored. You hold against me what you should not. I did not totally ignore them, I told you that I limited the scope of my response to deal more clearly with less issues to help promote clarity between us before moving on!

I will now make brief allusions to your questions without full treatment for the sake of brevity so that hopefully you will stop thinking that I am totally ignoring what I said I am purposefully waiting to respond to until we can clear up so many widespread misunderstandings before moving on to more issues!

Turbo and I agree that we are not under the law for salvation or a way of living out our faith in God. I assume that we also both agree that the law remains in effect for the dying world as the first step on the road to Romans, which is that all have sinned and need to get saved. Secondly, criminal law, which is given to governments, has not been repealed. The main alteration to “thou shall surely such and such ... and thus saith the Lord”, is not a repeal of the law, but an amendment that says that these laws should be enforced by the government, if they are not, then to that extent the government is being unrighteous, yet to the extent that they are not causing us to sin, we should obey them for conscience sake because they are God’s ministers of wrath executing vengeance against the criminal for goodness sake. So God places the entire world under manmade but God instituted government for the sake of opposing criminal activity, do well or be afraid. So we are not exempt from “criminal law”, but the law of God is not for salvation (anymore).

Sabboth law is not criminal law, it is symbolic, and Christ is the substance that fulfilled the symbols.

As to your slack in tautology, I disagree. You tried to bend the issue around covenants, I showed how that idea was wrong in that it’s more accurately a dispensational change, and it’s more accurately about whether or not laws were repealed or not. Please stick to commenting on the issues, and not the formal aspects of argumentation. There is only so much time, also you are not very accurate, redeem the time.

Sorry, got carried away
I did not comment about yet another thing you carelessly assert I did. About opinions, you said that the verse means to make opinions on everything. You who are spiritual are to opinionate everything. Ok, I’ll grant you that I was mistaken by asserting the proclamation part, but a righteous judgment, judge with righteous judgment, can not be simply an issue of “opinion”.

It must be based in righteousness, and righteousness is not an issue of personal subjectivity, it’s an issue of objective absolute righteousness and goodness. So if I speak my judgment/opinion that murder is terribly wrong, it is not just my opinion being presented, I am presenting my judgment against murder, that objectively speaking, it is absolutely terribly wrong.

But I also want to affirm a very important part of what you are saying. It is “my” personal judgment. I am not simply restating God’s teaching without my own personal conviction in it’s righteousness. Because the statement is condemning, and I personally affirm the condemnation involved, I am personally condemning murder as being absolutely a terrible evil.

Seminal lexical
You intellectual exclusivist. Such big words for the masses to contemplate, even for lowly me.

I see that you continue to ignore my statement of purposeful limitation of the scope of my last post by continuing throughout your entire post to charge against me what you do not know is true, saying that I neglected your arguments. I did not, I informed you that I am purposefully not addressing them all, and was instead trying to reduce the size and scope of things in order to help us gain mutual clarity on fewer issues “before moving on”. I find you making a few such remarks naturally acceptable because I did not specifiy exactly where I specifically stopped, but you repeatedly say the same thing, so it seems you have a desire to find fault/bad where it simply does not exist. Don’t cause strife.

To one extent I amend my statement about the BADG in that it is a personal judgment not just that we are repeating the judgments of God, we are to faithfully and righteously judge according to God’s teachings. But these opinions as you call them condemn evil people and sinful people and wicked people and hypocrites and false teachers and heretics and slanderers for being the ungodly bunch that they are. That is not a subjective thing, that concerns judgment from absolute standards of right and wrong. So it’s personal, but is based upon absolutes, not subjective opinion like I prefer strawberry over chocolate. Two very different issues, personal authority and conviction verses a foundation of absolutes of righteousness and goodness. And I meant moreso to dismiss what I understood to be your subjective representation of the reference work, not the specific authority it represents seeing how we never specifically even addressed it yet.

You quoted BADG and said some flaky subjective stuff. I basically agree with what it says, so maybe you can refresh my memory for why I should disagree with it.

Now, you get this huge trimmed down post as my attempt to reduce the data flow, the second part I tried to just make allusions to your points without copy and pasting, but it is still this large. So I disagree with your sentiment that we should answer more completely in terms of points.

From now on I will accurately quote you and respond accordingly and will stop responding when the size and scope becomes to problematic, and we can deal with those issues until reasonable clarity surfaces. You can continue to post as much as you like, and I will do the same. I would hope you would be more cooperative.

smaller
May 20th, 2004, 10:49 AM
1Way quote:
Clete does not say that, you are a moron.

Clete's quote:
I do think that homos should be executed through due process of law just as I believe that murderers should be and rapist and child molesters and abortionists (oh wait I already listed murderers) and whomever else is guilty of what the Bible clearly teaches is a capital crime.

1Way quote:
Jesus would never lead a homosexual to church, he would minister the truth and if it was not accepted, off to the gallows it would be.

Clete quote:
You will submit yourself to the Lord Jesus Christ and acknowledge Him as God, or you will go to Hell.

1Way quote:
Those who affirm/support homosexuality (a capitol offense) who also reject God and His ways, should be condemned as evil and wicked, a promoter of a capitol offense.

Clete is right to include “all” pro homo’s for personal rejection and contempt and for giving the reasoning for doing so to reasonable requests even though some are pro-homo. Is the Christian supposed to be personally accepting of a kidnaper, rapist, pedophile, murderer? Of course not, same with pro-homos because we Christians should know right from wrong and live what we preach.

Those who affirm the acceptance or practice of homosexuality should be put to death.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The beast and the false prophet never change....

Now WHAT were you blowing about smaller???

WAIT! I think I hear a little town in the middle east calling for you.....

BAG DAD BAG DAD

Aimiel
May 20th, 2004, 11:05 AM
To attempt to answer the literal question which is the title of this thread: I view God from an attitude of repentance, thanksgiving and worship; mainly from my knees, but often standing. I don't believe in 'falling under the power.' I'm not trying to say that it doesn't happen, but rather that The Lord is looking for those who are willing and able to stand in His Presence.

adajos
May 20th, 2004, 11:31 AM
Clete:


I think I may understand where our miscommunication is coming from. I really hope I'm right on this because there simply isn't anything controversial or even disputable about what I'm trying to communicate.

Well, we'll see. This is definitely the best post you've made on this thread.


It is not the term "conservative" or "liberal" or even "right-wing" or "left-wing" that I'm concerned about. Its whichever side of the issue one is on that is determined by one's worldview and one's convictions about what is right and wrong (i.e. the religious beliefs).

I understand.


Let me give an easy example...

Let's take abortion as our example issue since there is no dispute as to which side God is on and which side is considered conservative and right-wing in today vernacular.

Now assume its 150 year from now and that abortion in some form or another is still being debated. Assume also that the terms right-wing, left-wing, conservative and liberal all mean precisely the opposite of what they mean today.

If this were the case then God and all of those who agreed with Him that abortion is wrong would be liberal, left-wingers. So the terms would have all changed but the issue and the side of that issue one is on would not have changed and the reasons why one is on that particular side would not have changed either.

So do you see my point? It is the issues and which side of those issues one is on that has to do with religious convictions or the lack thereof, not the political title one tacks onto them.

Yes, I see your point. And you did a much better job of making it this time. But I feel like there are some unspoken assumptions behind your point I would like to explore.

The act of abortion is evil, except to save the life of the mother. It is a violation of the Ten Commandments on murder, and thus God finds it evil. So there's the Biblical case for the evil of abortion itself. Next comes the question of whether or not it should be illegal in civil law because of that. I'm sure my answer to that question is in agreement with yours, but we ought to think about how we arrive at that answer....

Let's step back for a minute, before continuing with abortion and examine another abhorrent practice, slavery. Slavery existed in Biblical times yet the institution is not condemned in the Bible. How then do we conclude that civil laws allowing slavery are ungodly and evil? I believe that civil laws allowing slavery are evil, for the record.

One we have answered that question, we will have a sound Biblical basis for our beliefs about the wickedness of certain civil laws.


This by the way is why the Bible is even relevant to today’s society. There is nothing new under the sun. The very same issues that we face today were being faced 4000 years ago in one form or another and the same moral principles apply to them today that did when God said, Thou shalt not steal, which, by the way, is why universal health care is wrong. It is stealing, the government takes my money under threat of law and pays some doctor to give mediocre medical treatment to a bunch of people who may or may not need it.

I am in agreement that UVH is a bad idea in terms of quality of services. Also high taxation usually comes back to bite us in the, uh, butt.

But where Biblically do you get the idea that taxation is stealing in God's eyes? As BChristianK pointed out earlier, Christ said "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's".

Clete
May 20th, 2004, 12:28 PM
Excellent post 1Way! :thumb:

1Way
May 20th, 2004, 12:34 PM
The smallishness said
"It's not my intention to be unreasonably harsh" says Clete as he declares that all homosexuals should be killed and those who do not advocate the killing should also be killed... The fact is that Clete nor I suggest to put to death anyone who does not advocate capitol punishment for homosexuals. Smaller is soon to go on my ignore list. I have never put anyone on my ignore list, because to me, information is not a bad thing. But in smaller’s case, putting up with his falseness and hypocrisy and ill will is a good case for ignore. Ya keep hoping that irrationality and hypocrisy would stop... but then again, there’s smaller.

servent101
May 20th, 2004, 12:43 PM
1Way
Ya keep hoping that irrationality and hypocrisy would stop... but then again, there’s smaller.

I gather that you caught smaller quoting someone and the quote he made up himself... that is pretty sick, smaller you need to repent.

I can understand your disgust 1Way - and I myself have only put one person on my ignore list - was not happy with the results - their name still appears on the board - but the post is hidden. I found it a very difficult thing to do - almost un-Christ like. It is a very painful thing to do.

Smaller why don’t you come clean and repent?


With Christ's Love

Servent101

Clete
May 20th, 2004, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by 1Way

The smallishness said The fact is that Clete nor I suggest to put to death anyone who does not advocate capitol punishment for homosexuals. Smaller is soon to go on my ignore list. I have never put anyone on my ignore list, because to me, information is not a bad thing. But in smaller’s case, putting up with his falseness and hypocrisy and ill will is a good case for ignore. Ya keep hoping that irrationality and hypocrisy would stop... but then again, there’s smaller.

If you put him on your ignore list be prepaired for the consequences!

He'll put you on his ignor-ant list! :shocked:

That is if your not there already. :darwinsm:

And by the way, you can still tell he's posted and can check out his post just by clicking on it. I don't do that very often but from time to time I read one of his posts just to get a laugh and to remind myself what a waste of time it is to read his lunacy.

1Way
May 20th, 2004, 01:02 PM
Clete - Thanks for the thumbs up. BChristianK seems to be at least responding in a somewhat reasonable way especially compared to others. I just wish to make the posts way smaller and take fewer and more foundational issues first and then go from there.

I especially liked the “peace” issue and also ”opinions verses righteous judgment”. Many liberals assume that having peace roughly equates to not offending or upsetting the kind and friendly acceptance of one another. The peace of God lends to very unpleasant situations when evil should be opposed. It has been a pleasure our mutual agreement, and to be quite honest, after only reading a bit of your views, I mostly assumed the rest of our agreements. LOL, so I find your comments now most refreshing. Our liberty in the truth is wonder to share.

Smaller is one terribly confused person. He is about to be put to ignore for shear and willful stupidity. I just want to see this bit end about falsely accusing you as he has.


servent - Thanks for the backup, but you know, with “nice” talk like that, your about to push me over the edge and put the smaller on ignore. ;) It is good and godly to personally reject divisive strife causing people. But believe it or not, I would accept it if smaller repented*, and I would be glad for him.

Ya, well, he restated in his own words what Clete supposedly teaches, and it is a complete lie, and then so often you hear smaller say something like, ya, I just like pushing your buttons and watching you wiggle in your own pool of self righteous bla bla bla. He can be so demented and ill willed it is terrible, and it is better not to dwell on such things, so putting him on ignore has very good upsides.

*(But I would not forget it incase he repeated the same offense showing no repentance. If he repents, I will forgive, if he lies and does not truly repent, he is not forgiven.)

BChristianK
May 20th, 2004, 01:26 PM
1way:
Thanks for your post;
I asked if you would agree then to amend Cletes statement to the following:



Needs to be qualified and amended so that it reads. “All I can do is post on this web site and shun as many homosexuals (who claim to be believers) that I can."

You did not agree.


No. If a pro-homo, like perhaps the several here in this thread, is actively seeking God’s views on the matter of homosexuality and how Christians should respond to it, I would say that it is ok to stop shunning long enough to teach the truth because at that point, the issue is not one of promotion, but one of learning.

Stop shunning? Where do we have the biblical mandate to start shunning anyone outside the church? Let me refresh your memory as to how this conversation arose. I disagreed with Cletes statement. You responded and pointed to 1 Corinthians 5:11. I pointed out this applied uniquely to believers, you agreed. That leaves you with no biblical precedent as of yet to make the claim that we should start shunning unbelieving homosexuals.

Next you claim:



Also part of the mix is that we are sharing our faith at the same time with many who are uncertain or who are not pro-homo, so we are not being hypocritical by addressing these issues and to some extent have been allowing pro-homo type arguments against our views. So it’s not simply an issue of pure personal rejection, otherwise discussions like this could never happen.

Pro-homo. If your applying this label to me, you have created yet another straw man argument.


Regarding Romans 12:9 you said:


So you say peace, and I think we may not agree as to what that idea means. The peace of God causes all kinds of unrest and even violent opposition from the wicked. We are responsible for not creating an unjustifiable offense, but if the righteous judgment against something wrong or bad creates a non-peaceful response, then the responder is the guilty party, not the righteous judge. It is he who is wise who will love you if you rebuke him. The impetus is more upon the proper response, not the delivery. A righteous rebuke has no need to be given in a non harsh or kind way. Yet along the scale of various way to expose an offense, nicer and kinder is a good preference, but is optional with rebuke. I hope that explains things.
It does explain things, it is also unbiblical.
Peter said that our apologetics are not to be without gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15) and Galatians likewise reminds us to restore one another gently (Galatians 6:1). When it comes to rebuke, kindness isn’t optional.

Now you said:


You quoted a question that brought me and Turbo into comparison and asked me if I understood the question. That was not the question I was answering, this is the first time I’ve seen that question.

Right, I hadn’t expected you to answer it before it was presented.


Much of your previous posts have been so filled with problems of misunderstanding that I stopped answering your post before I got to your similar question because I am getting sick and tired of working against so many misunderstandings.

Well, its possible that I am entirely culpable for all of those misunderstandings. If you need to blame someone for the misunderstandings generated in our conversation, I’ll take the blame.
So, now that this is cleared up, let’s continue with the conversation, ok?

Now you start answer some of the questions I posted. BTW, thank you for answering these.



The Christian’s yet future judgment (that will happen come judgment day when the world and the angles will be judged) is to be proceeded “so much more so” with judgment of things in “this life”.

Now we are finally to substantive argument.
The verse you are alluding to is:



Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life? (1 Cor. 6:3).

Now this particular verse does not extend the scope of judgement outside of the church is simply makes a contrast between heavenly matters (Angels) and matters of this life. This verse is couched within the context of judging legal matters inside the church as apposed to going before a Roman magistrate for the arbitration of disputes. In going to Roman authority, the church was letting their petty disputes be settled according to the worlds unrighteous standards. If you are gong to appropriate this verse you should at least keep in the same scope that Paul did, judgment within the church.
So, we are still left with no mandate to judge those outside the church.

You argue this point in your following statement:


Also we have the correspondence of subjects on both halves of the immediate comparison. We should now live in accordance to the righteous judgment that the world is unworthy to judge us because of their ungodliness, but we should judge ourselves to be fully fit to judge amongst our selves. So 1Co 5-6 does not restrict judgment to only being within the brethren, it promotes righteous judgment for all.

Well, this passage, in and of itself, does not explicitly restrict judgment to only being within the brethren, but it certainly does not go so far as to mandate or even permit that judgment be outside the brethren. Taken on its own, its purpose was solely to promote judgment among the brethren instead of taking matters to the Roman courts, and was silent concerning judging anything else. To appropriate the verse to substantiate judgment outside the brethren would be to ignore the context of the verse.

Regarding 1 Co. 11:31 you cite Strong’s and conclude.


Pretty interesting deal. This demonstrates glaringly loud that judgment is good and if done righteously can preclude future judgment of doing wrong.


What is also a pretty interesting deal is that this verse tells us to judge ourselves. The object of the verb is reflexive. That means that we are to either judge ourselves individually or to judge amongst ourselves as believers, I would go with the former given the context. What this verse doesn’t say is that we should be judging the outside world.


Now lets recap.

So far you have provided us with:
1 Cor 11:31, which I have dealt with above.

1 Cor 5:11: I have shown that this verse applies to judging within the brethren only.

Proverbs 6:16: This has nothing to do with judging but rather was used as a billy-club to attack me for disagreeing with Clete.

Heb 12:23 Which describes God as Judge not us.

John 5:22 Which describes Christ as Judge not us.

1 Cor 6:2 which you side with Turbo as being at the consummation of all things. And verse 3 which I have shown applies to judgment within the church not outside.

1 Cor 2:15 which carries the word Judge in the connotation of appraisal (as the NAU translates it), not executing sentencing or punishments such as shunning.

John 7:24 Which I showed you carried the connotation of rightly holding an opinion in accordance with righteousness and not according to appearance and that this verse has nothing to do with executing punishment (shunning) on those in the outside world.

Finally the only other verse you have alluded to is Romans 12:9 which doesn’t deal with judgment at all but rather is an admonition to abhor evil and cling to what is good.

So while you and Clete keep tag teaming this issue and patting each other on the back when you post, I don’t see a single scripture that confirms Clete’s determination to:


shun as many homos as I come in contact with.
or your refusal to agree to my amendment of that statement, or your continued argument that his doing so is godly while the rest of us are ungodly pro-homos.

If you’ve got a scripture that confirms Clete’s statement and your defense of it, by all means post it, but contrary to your assertion that you “judge the world by the rest of the bible (which I do believe you desire to do),” you are nonetheless, as of this post, derelict in providing even one scripture that supports your conclusion.

I'll address the rest of your points in a subsequent post.

Grace and Peace

BChristianK
May 20th, 2004, 02:20 PM
Continued from post #209

1Way said:


As to Turbo, all I see is that he agrees with me.

He agrees with you and Clete concerning the execution of homosexuals, but he has yet to get back to me on why considering the dispensation we are in. This is the reason for my questions.

You briefly address these questions.


Turbo and I agree that we are not under the law for salvation or a way of living out our faith in God. I assume that we also both agree that the law remains in effect for the dying world as the first step on the road to Romans, which is that all have sinned and need to get saved.

While I agree that the world falls under condemnation, I wouldn’t agree that their condemnation was the Mosaic Law. Rather their exchange of the knowledge of God (Romans 1) is their accusation and they perish apart from the law (Romans 2:12). Though I’ll not go into a full exegesis of Galatians (3:24), I would argue that the us that Paul speaks of as being led to Christ are the Jews since the Gentiles never had the law to tutor them to Christ in the first place. But I didn’t argue this with Turbo and I probably shouldn’t have gotten into it here either. Suffice to say we all agree that all sinned and all need to get saved.
You said:


Secondly, criminal law, which is given to governments, has not been repealed.

I’m not arguing that governmental prerogative and responsibility to execute civil judgment has been repealed.


The main alteration to “thou shall surely such and such ... and thus saith the Lord”, is not a repeal of the law, but an amendment that says that these laws should be enforced by the government, if they are not, then to that extent the government is being unrighteous, yet to the extent that they are not causing us to sin, we should obey them for conscience sake because they are God’s ministers of wrath executing vengeance against the criminal for goodness sake.

I agree.



So God places the entire world under manmade but God instituted government for the sake of opposing criminal activity, do well or be afraid. So we are not exempt from “criminal law”, but the law of God is not for salvation (anymore).

I get your point, I would argue salvation by work in the OT but I get your point.



Sabboth law is not criminal law, it is symbolic, and Christ is the substance that fulfilled the symbols.

Now here is where I get a bit cranky with you folks. I have seen the Acts 9 open theist crowd chew a Calvinist up one side and down the other for being philosophically inconsistent when it comes to double predestination (which I find is great entertainment as I hold a marginal open theist position myself). But here is where you have your own inconsistency.

You folks make a huge deal that the program of God changed at the time of Paul’s conversion and that the gentiles were in no way under the requirements of the law that was the old program, right? But here you start making arguments about the continuity of Levitical requirements like Convenant theologians. How many times have you heard the covenant theologians claim that the symbolic and cultic laws were satisfied in Christ but the moral laws weren’t?

Isn’t this really what your argument comes down to?

My argument is that the law never, ever, made the distinction between a symbolic law and a moral one. The symbolic laws were moral. It was immoral to pick up sticks on Saturday and the penalty for doing so shows that it was just as immoral as homosexuality.

Now was it symbolic in that Christ satisfied the substance of that command so that it no longer applies to us in Paul's dispensation?

Absolutely.

Did Christ absorb in His sacrifice the entire penalty of breaking that command through the cross?

Absolutely!

Is this different than the penalty of any other Mosaic command?

I can’t find one place in the bible that suggests as much. Can you?
Can you find a place where Paul says in effect, “my dispensation is one characterized by Christ satisfying all the penalties of the symbolic commands but the capital punishments of the moral commands of the Mosaic Law go wholly unaddressed by the cross of Christ.”

Can you show me a verse or even a series of verses that amount to saying in substance what that quote says?

You can’t!

And that is why your insistence that homosexuality be considered a capital crime is inconsistent with your dispensational views.
You have to appeal to the Mosaic Law and assume its continuity when it comes to what you would identify as moral commands to make that argument biblical. But before you make that argument you need to make up your mind if this gospel puts us under the law or not, because like the covenant theologians, you can’t have your cake and eat it to.

Finally I’ll draw this to a close but before I do I’ll comment on one zinger you sent my way.


You intellectual exclusivist.
Well make up your mind, am I an intellectual exclusivist or am I


...dragging the conversation below reasonable and intellectual levels.


;)

Look, from what I can tell you are an intelligent person trying to do your best to follow the Lord. I can assure you that, although I think you are probably smarter than I am, I also endeavor to do the same. We’re going to have to spend a long time together in eternity. Let’s practice not calling each other names here, ok?
I’ll admit that I reacted to what I considered to be your attack on me using Proverbs 16. That was wrong and I apologize.

Now, can we discuss things like adults going forward?

Grace and Peace

BChristianK
May 20th, 2004, 10:28 PM
Clete said:


It is not the term "conservative" or "liberal" or even "right-wing" or "left-wing" that I'm concerned about. Its whichever side of the issue one is on that is determined by one's worldview and one's convictions about what is right and wrong (i.e. the religious beliefs).





Now that is an argument I can buy.


:thumb:


Grace and Peace

1Way
May 21st, 2004, 06:43 AM
Wow, BChristianK, looking forward to more, but again, I was hoping for more mutual effort towards clarity prior to so much opposing debate.

But, since you are the one drawing the line of separation between us, if you are so inclined, then be my guest, you clearly have drawn the opposition. But I will be somewhat delayed in my response compared to recent activity. Maybe a day or two, I’ll update if it changes for the worse.

In the mean time, as to “name calling”, don’t accuse me as acting “without cause” or that it’s wrong to do as I have done on the basis that it is not nice to name call. I responded directly to what I exposed in “you” doing wrong, yet I do not recall that you made any efforts to make amends. Instead you just defensively charged against me for doing wrong.

Certainly being “nicer than God” is part of this debate, so don’t beg that question. It is precisely because of my godly care for the truth and righteousness that I challenged your behavior and your response is that in so doing, I am doing wrong! It is my good and godly service, do not speak bad/evil of my good. I may be wrong in the content of my charges (though I think not), but that I charge as I have is not wrong.

I affirm your desire to treat each other with the respect and dignity we should have in Christ, but without sacrificing opposition against that which is bad or false or evil, because if we did not do that, then our so called friendly and nice “agape” risks turning into the sin of hypocrisy. Hypocrasy, bad,
judging and opposing evil, good.

So, how about this, on the two issues you specifically sited me for calling you names, please review the context of my charges against you, and let me know of your resolution for what you did (and according to my charges). I say that exposing offense/bad/evil, you say “name calling” is a cross dispensational long standing godly tradition.

In Christ

BChristianK
May 21st, 2004, 09:38 AM
1Way said:


Wow, BChristianK, looking forward to more, but again, I was hoping for more mutual effort towards clarity prior to so much opposing debate.

Mutual effort towards mutual clarity is fine with me. If you are referring to the size of my posts, we can get clear on some of the essentials and work outward if you like.
However you choose to proceed. If you back things down to a more fundamental level, I’ll not charge you with ignoring arguments. I didn’t realize your previous posts were designed to do this or I woudn’t have made such a big deal about you not addressing my questions.



But, since you are the one drawing the line of separation between us, if you are so inclined, then be my guest, you clearly have drawn the opposition. But I will be somewhat delayed in my response compared to recent activity. Maybe a day or two, I’ll update if it changes for the worse.

I’m not drawing a chalk line as if this were a boxing match. Yea, we started off on the wrong foot in my opinion but I’m not “out to get ya.” And I don’t perceive that you are “out to get me.” So though we are on opposite sides of this particular issue, I don’t think it is totally accurate to conclude we are in opposition. I think that in most debates, we’d find one another on the same side of the line, this just happens to be one in which we disagree.
No big deal. If we keep the rhetoric the same as if we were having a lively discussion over a cup of coffee, I don’t see how we have done any harm. I have always concluded that you folks are pretty thick skinned and, though I think I am less, I don’t let most things ruffle my feathers. As far as when you can reply, no hurry, take all the time you need.



In the mean time, as to “name calling”, don’t accuse me as acting “without cause” or that it’s wrong to do as I have done on the basis that it is not nice to name call.

I don’t accuse you of acting without cause. I just don’t agree with your cause. You assumed I was supporting the ungodly decision and then, based on that assumption, proceeded to set me straight. I think I have, as of the last post, at least demonstrated that your assumption was not indisputable. If it is true, as it appears to me it is, that your assumption was based on faulty conclusions, then you will have handed out a rebuke that was inappropriate.

I responded directly to what I exposed in “you” doing wrong, yet I do not recall that you made any efforts to make amends.

Amends for what? Disagreeing with Clete. I was invited to do, as were we all, in the start of the thread.


Poly said:
What is your view of God? Do you agree or disagree with Clete? Give reasoning or scripture for your vote.



Instead you just defensively charged against me for doing wrong.
I certainly defensively charged against you, and I have apologized for that defensiveness. I don’t know what wrong you still think I was doing. If it is disagreeing with Clete, then it is a little more than disingenuous for the “don’t be nicer than God” folks to ask for discussion on a topic, whether it be agreement or disagreement, and then proceed to cast stones when you get what you asked for.



Certainly being “nicer than God” is part of this debate, so don’t beg that question.

Sure, I personally don’t think you can get kinder than God, but if you are going to hand out rebukes openly I think you should be darn sure that you can biblically substantiate the assumptions of your charge. Personally, I prefer the Matthew 18 model to the trigger happy openly public rebuke style.


It is precisely because of my godly care for the truth and righteousness that I challenged your behavior and your response is that in so doing, I am doing wrong! It is my good and godly service, do not speak bad/evil of my good. I may be wrong in the content of my charges (though I think not), but that I charge as I have is not wrong.

That just doesn’t make any sense. IF you prematurely haul off and thwop a guy in a convenience store because you have it in your mind he is going to rob the place, but it turns out that there is absolutely no reason to believe that he was, then you weren’t right in thwopin’ the dude.
Your knee jerk reaction was wrong, you should have been more thoughtful and cautious to make sure you could substantiate your interpretation of the facts before you acted with such aggression.

Finally, when can we start making this about something other than how crappy a Christian I am for disagreeing with Clete? I’ve already apologized for reacting to your charges defensively without so much as a request for, or an expectation of, an apology from you for your aggressive and premature accusation. Can we move on?
Apparently no, I read ahead and the whole of your post was a defense of your name calling behavior.



I affirm your desire to treat each other with the respect and dignity we should have in Christ,

I sense a ‘but’ coming..


but without sacrificing opposition against that which is bad or false or evil, because if we did not do that, then our so called friendly and nice “agape” risks turning into the sin of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy, bad,
judging and opposing evil, good.

I’m not saying you can’t disagree with me, I’m just saying that when you do, lets not, first conclude without any conversation that you are entirely right and I am entirely wrong and second, that it is your God ordained role to straighten the rest of us out and to fully unload the arsenal of artillery on the first post.



So, how about this, on the two issues you specifically sited me for calling you names, please review the context of my charges against you, and let me know of your resolution for what you did (and according to my charges).

Is this a, “when you can come out and admit you are wrong, you can join the rest of the family at the dinner table,” speech?

You’re too much.

Look, you think its your deal to rebuke me at will. I disagree. I’m not looking for an apology, just that we move on? Interested or no?

If you want to continue to hand out rebukes, I’ll ignore them until you have convinced me that you are correct in your assumptions, and have done so employing biblical substantiation and logic (which I know you are capable of since I have read your other posts). Then, if you have proven your case, I’ll go back, and repent to the Lord, and if He so leads, to you and Clete as well. Until then why don’t we focus on the substance of the arguments not openly public rebukes that should, at the very least, follow a healthy dialog on the subject, not precede it.


Grace and Peace

1Way
May 21st, 2004, 10:14 AM
BChristianK – I was specific in my response to you, I am specifically asking you to get specific with your responses to me. You have made dozens of generalizations of my personal wrong doing, including asking me what I mean while at the same time finding it within yourself to judge against me. So I dismiss your generalizations and I simply await for you to deal with the two specific issues that you raised against me since they are the only two with any teeth in them. If you are unwilling to work towards a peaceable resolution over your claims of my wrongdoing, which was actually over my claims of you doing wrong, then the case becomes all so clear.

I want the issue resolved and if possible, amends made, but you do not, you protect unsubstantiated offenses away from reconciliation, and you resist or perhaps deny accountability over such matters.

You made two specific claims against me, so I am rightly trying to set that situation right. I hope you will be so kind and considerate and respectful as to help me do that. And don’t ask me what the claims are all about, you are the one who supposedly knew enough about the situation to judge against me. So for the second time I politely ask, please substantiate your specific claims of my wrong doing, and stop making slanderous generalizations.

BChristianK
May 21st, 2004, 05:47 PM
1Way, in my last post I asked:


Look, you think its your deal to rebuke me at will. I disagree. I’m not looking for an apology, just that we move on? Interested or no?
You replied:



BChristianK – I was specific in my response to you, I am specifically asking you to get specific with your responses to me. You have made dozens of generalizations of my personal wrong doing, including asking me what I mean while at the same time finding it within yourself to judge against me.

Ok then, let’s settle the petty dispute. First off, my making dozens of generalizations of your personal wrong doing is a fallacious statement. It is either a mistake on your part or a lie. In this very post you have admitted that there are two claims that I have made against you. Last time I made cookies two didn’t constitute a dozen.

But as to the two you are probably referring to:

1. Your abusive use of Proverbs 6:19.
a. If you were aware of the first Post made by Polly, then you would have been aware that disagreement was not only permissible, it was invited. To ask for something and then to object when you get it is disingenuous.
b. Your use of Proverbs 6:19 as an accusation that I am sowing discord with Clete presupposes that Clete isn’t wrong. I argue that Clete is, in fact wrong. I did so in a forum in which such argumentation was invited.
c. You have been evasive to this point in substantiating your presupposition that Clete isn’t wrong and until you do I won’t accept your rebuke. I won’t accept a rebuked from you for sowing discord if I am able to substantiate my position biblically, especially in light of your failure to prove otherwise. For if you cannot prove that my arguments against Clete’s statements are biblically unsubstantiated, then your charge that I am sowing discord is illegitimate.
d. If you really thought that I had wronged Clete, you should have PM’d me to deal with it as apposed to taking it upon yourself to do so on the board per Matthew 18.
2. Your name calling was childish.


You intellectual exclusivist.

You know precious little about me, my attitudes toward intellectualism, or who I choose to hang out with. Your name calling is based on your ignorance about my attitudes and behavior and you were out of line.

Is this specific enough?

Honestly, I don’t know why you insist we persist in arguing over these things when the substance of our discussion goes yet unaddressed.



So I dismiss your generalizations and I simply await for you to deal with the two specific issues that you raised against me since they are the only two with any teeth in them.

This is a mischaracterization of my other arguments and I promise once we have worked through these two issues you would like to deal with, the substantive arguments regarding the exegesis of the scriptures we have used and the arguments I have made regarding the discontinuity of the Old Covenant Laws will resurface.


If you are unwilling to work towards a peaceable resolution over your claims of my wrongdoing, which was actually over my claims of you doing wrong, then the case becomes all so clear.

Now, since you now admit that you did, in fact, advanced Proverbs 6:19 against me, in perception of my wrongdoing.
Please, specifically, clarify for me what it is I did wrong that was worthy of your rebuke. For it is likewise true that if you refuse to work toward a peaceable resolution of your claims of my wrongdoing then the case also becomes so clear, does it not?




I want the issue resolved and if possible, amends made…

Cool.


but you do not, you protect unsubstantiated offenses away from reconciliation, and you resist or perhaps deny accountability over such matters.
No.



You made two specific claims against me, so I am rightly trying to set that situation right.

Articulated above per your request.


I hope you will be so kind and considerate and respectful as to help me do that.

I hope my articulation of those two claims above were helpful in doing so.



And don’t ask me what the claims are all about, you are the one who supposedly knew enough about the situation to judge against me.

And you apparently knew enough of the situation to accuse me of sowing discord, so I hope you will grant me the reciprocal courtesy of articulating what transgression I committed that was worthy of your uninvited rebuke.


So for the second time I politely ask, please substantiate your specific claims of my wrong doing, and stop making slanderous generalizations.

I appreciate your courtesy. I have substantiated my claims above and If you think I have made slanderous generalizations, I would like for you to please point them out.

Grace and Peace

1Way
May 23rd, 2004, 04:24 PM
BChristianK - Things are worse. I've lost two hard drives, and my main computer is down. This will take longer.

No, it was not what you went into labors again with. I said it was originally over "my" complaints against "you", you then singled out those two specific complaints of mine against you, and you charged me with doing wrong. "You" specified these two issues of contention. So I simply wanted you to deal with my allegations against you instead of dismissing them as you have. I thought asking to deal with just these two issues will be a great way to show mutual respectable desires in Christ, and pave the way for some healthy personal respect and consideration. If it works out, then great, if not then such is life. If two is too much, if need be, we can just deal with one then. Thanks for your patience as I go through some unpleasant (to say the least) computer issues.

Oh, and I had a rough draft workup of dealing with your post, it was in depth, but it is down with my crashed computer. I may be restricted to less intensive posting for even weeks, not sure though, or it might be fixed by a simple reinstall of windows.
In Christ

BChristianK
May 24th, 2004, 09:29 AM
1Way


No, it was not what you went into labors again with. I said it was originally over "my" complaints against "you", you then singled out those two specific complaints of mine against you, and you charged me with doing wrong. "You" specified these two issues of contention. So I simply wanted you to deal with my allegations against you instead of dismissing them as you have.


Your two allegations against me.
1. That I sowed discord among the brethren
2. That I am an intellectual exclusivist

Are both trumped up and fallacious charges. You’re wrong on both counts. I’m willing to let the whole thing go, but I’m not going to confess to fallacious charges. I was not sowing discord among the brethren as you suggest, I was disagreeing on a theology bulletin board after responding to a universal invite to do so. Furthermore, I disagreed with Clete because I am convinced that Clete’s statement was wrong, you would have to prove the tenants upon which I disagree with Clete to be fallacious before you would have just cause to accuse me with sowing discord.
Unless, of course, your definition of sowing discord is disagreeing with anyone even if that person is incorrect. But then that would be ridiculous and in your words, carrying the conversation below intellectual levels.
If your definition of sowing discord is to disagree with another Christian with the basis of that disagreement being incorrect biblical interpretation, then it is incumbent upon you to show that my exegesis of the passages we have been discussing are incorrect before you press the charge of sowing discord And If you are unable to do conclusively, then you should withdraw your charge completely.

Basically, your accusation that I have sown discord is based on the assumption that you and Clete are totally biblically right, and I am totally biblically wrong. Well, I disagree, so your gonna have to demonstrate that I am totally biblically wrong before I will entertain your accusations.

It would be as if Z Man said to you about Open Theism, “Your wrong, I’m right, here’s one scripture that proves it, HA! No way am I going to give you a chance to respond before I accuse you. We aren’t even going to discuss it because I am just right and you are just wrong, and by the way, because you are wrong, your sowing discord.”

When you bring up the meaning of the word Nacham in Hebrew, Z man says, “You intellectual exclusivist!”

Then when you say, “Hey, that’s jacked up, why don’t we analyze the biblical evidence before you determine a priori that I am wrong and you are right, and before you start casting stones based on your a priori conclusions?”

Z man responds, “nope, I’ll not discuss the possibility that you are right, until you capitulate to my a priori accusations that you have sown discord, Oh, I know, that accusation is contingent upon your actually being wrong, which we won't discuss until you capitulate to my accusations but that’s just the breaks.”

You’d be totally justified and saying that Z man has the cart before the horse and was off his rocker.

Second, I’m not an intellectual exclusivist. I was using a tool that has the most recent and reliable scholarship available today. Bob Hill teaches his students Greek.

Why?

So that they can have a better understanding of what the text specifically says. In the same way, I utilize the most reliable lexicon of the Greek language to better discern what the text specifically says. I am no more an intellectual exclusivist for using BDAG than Bob Hill is an intellectual exclusivist for knowing, using and teaching his knowledge of the Greek language in biblical interpretation.

Now I am starting to get the feeling that what you really mean when you say.



So I simply wanted you to deal with my allegations against you instead of dismissing them as you have.


Is..
“I want you to capitulate to the charges I have brought against you before we discuss whether or not my charges were substantiated.

If that is the case, then, yes, you will be waiting a long time for this. I was not sowing discord and I am not an intellectual exclusivist. And I will continue to dismiss charges that are false.

Do you think that false charges should be entertained?



Now you say:



I thought asking to deal with just these two issues will be a great way to show mutual respectable desires in Christ, and pave the way for some healthy personal respect and consideration.

Since when is sowing mutual respect tantamount to you making accusations against my character and my capitulating to those fallacious accusations without the right to show that they are indeed fallacious?

My opinion would be that showing mutual respect is holding off on making charges against one another’s character, at least until sufficient evidence is brought to bear on the subject, and even then it is not always appropriate.

So here’s the deal. I’m through discussing accusations. If you want to address the substantive issues of the post, I’m game. But I’m going to take your advice and redeem the time and to save Knight the server space of bickering with you over whether I have sown discord or not or am an intellectual exclusivist. This is rapidly becoming the domain of foolish argument.

If you want to address the substance of my arguments, then I am more than happy to engage in a friendly dialog. But I’m not going to discuss the charges of intellectual exclusivism anymore, at all, and I won’t entertain your argument that I am sowing discord until you have proven to me that I am not correct in my disagreement with Clete’s statement. If you wanna continue to talk about these two issues before responding to the substantive issues, your going to do it alone.




Thanks for your patience as I go through some unpleasant (to say the least) computer issues.

No problem.




Oh, and I had a rough draft workup of dealing with your post, it was in depth, but it is down with my crashed computer. I may be restricted to less intensive posting for even weeks, not sure though, or it might be fixed by a simple reinstall of windows.


Sorry about your computer issues. I understand, I’m in no hurry for your responses to take your time and do what you need to do.

Grace and Peace

1Way
May 24th, 2004, 06:07 PM
BChristianK - I remember the one so the other must be accurate, thanks for helping me find them, and for not begrudging me for not presenting them earlier, I looked for them and did not find them. Your patience in so doing is appreciated, especially since you have now devoted two not small posts to this issue, and we are almost getting to square one. :) But the other does not seem right, but, for the time being, I am trusting you to deal uprightly representing my words on this issue.

To the point, I did not ask you to exonerate yourself over these issues.

I asked you to help me and my desire to make amends while accurately considering my charges. Plainly, your characterizations of what I levied against you do not match my intentions.

So, lets back up again, and this time try to deal with what I intended to convey. However, I do appreciate your examples using Z Man, they seem rather insightful arguments on their own.

On the one issue, you totally got me all wrong. And because I really want to cut to the chase, I'll just explain. The remark about being "exclusive" was particular to a specific choice of words. It was very exclusive, but there is not necessarily "sin" to utilize exclusive words. I sort of like it sometimes, especially if we remember to incorporate such things with the respect and consideration of others who do not use such terms. So it was not a cheap shot at you, it was a genuine concern for the benefit of everyone. What I stated was "specific", but you took it as "general". You took some liberty to do that, and upon reflection, you should not have done that. In fact, I recently gave a note of appreciation to Clete because of how decent you have been. post 208 Clete - Thanks for the thumbs up. BChristianK seems to be at least responding in a somewhat reasonable way especially compared to others. I just wish to make the posts way smaller and take fewer and more foundational issues first and then go from there. So my objectivity towards your contributions are not so unfair and misapplied as you may have thought. But I know this, if I have to correct so many issues of misunderstanding prior to getting at the heart of a matter, the productivity of our debate will not go far. Looking forward to your response concerning my request that we cooperatively make amends over those two issues. I would hope that I would not have to explain what you should do about them. You judged against me concerning those two issues, yet I say you don't even show a reasonable understanding of what I was getting at. What would be ideal, would be for you to accurately reflect my views without my going back to the original context and figuring them out again for myself. That would be a great start. And then you might explain your understanding for why it might have actually been a valid offense, or how I may have been wrong too, but this time, say such things according to my intentions, not contrary to them. (or just about the one that is left.) Thanks.

Oh, here is the latest note about my availability for this debate, which I really look forward to. I have recently went to church! One Sunday, two churches. Anyway, I incidentally met a gentleman who is against the open view, but is not very Calvinistic. So long story short is that I might potentially be dealing with (this guy's associate) a writer in a local Christian publication that is about to publish a public denouncement of the open view, and I am a strong supporter and defender of the Open View, so I may be spending time with that effort which may again put off this debate for a while. I am excited about this opportunity, but so far my desire to be included in that issue is being met with resistance. But I am looking forward our debate too.

BChristianK
May 24th, 2004, 09:52 PM
1Way said:

I remember the one so the other must be accurate… and we are almost getting to square one.

Well, that is at least progress.


But the other does not seem right, but, for the time being, I am trusting you to deal uprightly representing my words on this issue.

Ok.


To the point, I did not ask you to exonerate yourself over these issues.

No you didn’t. It sounds to me like what you were asking for is capitulation. If that isn’t the case, then we’ve missed each other again, but that’s my honest assessment. I’ve articulated my perspective on those two issues, if you’d like to respond specifically to some elements of my articulation, I’ll go so far as to go back on my statement that I am done talking about it if doing so will be for the cause of being at peace with all men, (Romans 12:18).



I asked you to help me and my desire to make amends while accurately considering my charges.

Amends to whom and for what?

If you feel like you have a need to make amends with me. Then don’t worry about it, I’m way past being over the ever surfacing issues one and two, and my desire is that we move this thing along, not continue to beat the dead horse.

If you think I need to make amends with you, then please answer the following:
Do you expect me to make amends to you and/or Clete for disagreeing with him and/or you in post #68 of this thread?

And if so why do you assume that I should do so despite the fact that I stand in disagreement honestly. Offering capitulation on this point would be disingenuous of me. I still disagree with Clete and my previous posts have given ample reason as to why this is the case. If you would like to discuss why I disagree then we will have moved into the substantive issues of the discussion I wish to focus on like the exegesis of the scriptures that have been used on both sides and the perpetuity, or non-perpetuity, of capital punishment for homosexuality as prescribed by the Mosaic Covenant.


Plainly, your characterizations of what I levied against you do not match my intentions.

Ok then, what were you intentions?, because my characterization of what you have levied against me are exactly the way I honestly see it. If you see it differently you’re going to have to show me where I mischaracterized your charges against me. Or drop the matter altogether.

Either option is cool with me. But one way or the other, let’s move this thing forward, ok?


On the one issue, you totally got me all wrong. And because I really want to cut to the chase, I'll just explain… What I stated was "specific", but you took it as "general".
Ok, if you say so.


You took some liberty to do that, and upon reflection, you should not have done that.


Well, I don’t think I took as much liberty as you are suggesting. We were, in fact, talking about my use of the term “seminal lexical” as you say, but your response wasn’t. “this term is intellectually exclusive.” You said: “you intellectual exclusivist.”
The former is what you have just explained you meant, the latter is what you said. And I think most reasonable people would take the latter as a general claim about my character not as a commentary on my word usage. This explanation is not designed to perpetuate the issue however. You may take this comment and do with it as you deem appropriate. If it’s helpful feedback that is useful to you in conversing with me or others going forward, then great, if not, feel free to ignore it.

Nonetheless, no big deal, lets just consider it dropped, ok?




In fact, I recently gave a note of appreciation to Clete because of how decent you have been. post 208



Clete - Thanks for the thumbs up. BChristianK seems to be at least responding in a somewhat reasonable way especially compared to others. I just wish to make the posts way smaller and take fewer and more foundational issues first and then go from there.


I hadn’t read that since I don’t make it a point to read posts that aren’t directed at me not because I’m not interested, but because that would be quite time consuming. So thanks for the kind words. I also think that you are reasonable compared to others as I have responded to Adajos in post #31 in “Its all Jesus (Says the Dalai Lama).

(regarding some posters I Said)
I find it much easier to reason with Clete and 1Way. I am pretty convinced that they do care what the bible says and if we provide compelling enough arguments, they’ll eventually come around.



You said:



So my objectivity towards your contributions are not so unfair and misapplied as you may have thought.

Perhaps not. And if I have overreacted, and I have been unnecessarily aggressive because I have misinterpreted your charges against me, then I am sorry.



But I know this, if I have to correct so many issues of misunderstanding prior to getting at the heart of a matter, the productivity of our debate will not go far.

I feel the same way.



Looking forward to your response concerning my request that we cooperatively make amends over those two issues. I would hope that I would not have to explain what you should do about them. You judged against me concerning those two issues, yet I say you don't even show a reasonable understanding of what I was getting at.

Ok, so let’s assume that you are completely correct, and that I have totally misinterpreted your charges against me. If that’s the case, then I apologize for the misinterpretation.

Now it is incumbent on you to clarify what you have against me or drop it.



What would be ideal, would be for you to accurately reflect my views without my going back to the original context and figuring them out again for myself. That would be a great start. And then you might explain your understanding for why it might have actually been a valid offense, or how I may have been wrong too, but this time, say such things according to my intentions, not contrary to them. (or just about the one that is left.) Thanks.


Ok, I’m trying to be patient with this 1Way, I really am. So I’ll give it one more shot.

You would have been exposing a valid offense that I had committed. If I had rudely and inconsiderately charged against Clete without deference to biblical or logical truth in a forum where it was explicitly stated that dissenting opinion were not welcome.

However, I intended very much for my post, post #68, to be polite, considerate and concomitant with biblical and logical truth. Furthermore, the post was advanced in a discussion thread were dissenting opinions were solicited.

So that’s where I’m at. I can only call em’ as I see em’. If I don’t see em’ in the same light you do, asking me to go back and try to second guess my reading of your intentions isn’t going to help. I don’t have ESP, so if I have misdiagnosed your intentions you’re going to have to clarify them.

So I’ll leave it to you to specify how your interpretation of the events differ or to drop the whole thing altogether.

Again, either option works for me as long as we can move on.

Finally you say:


Anyway, I incidentally met a gentleman who is against the open view, but is not very Calvinistic. So long story short is that I might potentially be dealing with (this guy's associate) a writer in a local Christian publication that is about to publish a public denouncement of the open view, and I am a strong supporter and defender of the Open View, so I may be spending time with that effort which may again put off this debate for a while. I am excited about this opportunity, but so far my desire to be included in that issue is being met with resistance.

I’ll pray that God will open the way for you to participate.

BTW. A great publication came out recently that I picked up. It is an brief anthology of published debates on the concept of Divine Foreknowledge. Greg Boyd represents the Open View against David Hunt (the simple-foreknowledge view), William Lane Craig (The middle knowledge view) and Paul Helm of the Augustinian/Calvinist view)

The book name is Divine Foreknowledge it is edited by James K. Beilby and Paul R. Eddy, and its published by InterVarsity Press.

You may already have the book, but if not it might be a good resource for you in preparation.



But I am looking forward our debate too.

Ditto, though If you need to duck out, you won’t hurt my feelings any.
:)


Grace and Peace

adajos
May 25th, 2004, 06:30 AM
BCK:


BTW. A great publication came out recently that I picked up. It is an brief anthology of published debates on the concept of Divine Foreknowledge. Greg Boyd represents the Open View against David Hunt (the simple-foreknowledge view), William Lane Craig (The middle knowledge view) and Paul Helm of the Augustinian/Calvinist view)

The book name is Divine Foreknowledge it is edited by James K. Beilby and Paul R. Eddy, and its published by InterVarsity Press.

Boyd, Eddy, and Beilby are all theolgy profs (or ex-profs) at Bethel College, my alma mater. I am the most familiar with Boyd, who is brilliant and hilarious all at the same time. Every now and again, I atend his church, because he gives incredible sermons and is the most dynamic speaker I have ever heard. I also have a good buddy who plays basketball with Beilby at Bethel too.

Boyd and Eddy used to teach a class called God, Evil, and Spiritual Warfare that was apparently terrific. I never took it, but my friends told me that in addition to the content being great, Boyd and Eddy would put each other down all the time, which was quite amusing.

When it first became widely known that Boyd was a proponent of the Open View, there was quite a controversy on campus. If you've read any of his stuff, let me assure you that he's even better in person because he is so excited and full of energy in person.

Well, that didn't add much to this discussion. Just thought I'd throw it out there since I kind of know all those guys. :D

Brent
May 25th, 2004, 07:39 AM
Clete is right. People who think the God of the Bible is a loving, gentle, ole St. Nick figure who ”knows their heart”, and “understands”... hasn’t read the Bible. The Christian God wasn’t powerful enough to hang on to his own creation. He went away to pout for a while, then he came back and started killing people. Sometimes he told “his” people to kill everyone. Other times, he did the killing himself. Occasionally, he would get pissed and start killing all of “his” people. Eventually he will destroy everything except for a few who have REALLY sucked up hard. They get to go to “heaven”. But I don’t know how they could call walking on thin ice, afraid to make one slip and get sent to hell, heaven. Does the Christian God like gays? Nope. He hates them. He wants to burn them in the lake of fire for ever and ever. Does he like Moslems? Are you kidding? Those demon worshipers will burn, burn, burn. Does he like Catholics? No way! Those pagan imitators of the Faith are the great whore who is drunk on the blood of the Saints. They will die, die, die! Does he like Protestants? NOT! They are the daughter of the whore. They are backsliders! They don’t have the Spirit. They’re lost, lost, lost. And what about the Pentecostals? Afraid not! They’ve faked the Spirit. Their eyes are only on the things of this world. Riches and fancy cars. They will be cast into HELL!!! All of them are going to Hell! MOVE OUT OF MY WAY MOSES SO I CAN KILL ALL OF THEM!!!

OK, so there’s your loving God.

Brent

On Fire
May 25th, 2004, 07:48 AM
Welcome, Brent. Now SHUT UP you wacko!

smaller
May 25th, 2004, 07:51 AM
I like your style Brent. You are right...

and all the while God can be like Mr. Boyd above...witty, entertaining, engaging, SO FULL OF energy and "good vibrations" and yet ready to strike his snake like fangs and inject his venom deep into all the things that he hates, not seeing that it was God who created them ALL in the first place. The God who even wanted to kill Moses.

Of course their "god" who's LOVE is basically WORTHLESS to heal, correct, soothe, raise, or overcome OR LOVE, and has become a god of absolute darkness and total perpetual destruction, always UNTO OTHERS of course.

A truthful expression of the very ANTI-Christ they seek to run from is really WITHIN them all as they continually express this LOOOOSER that they worship.

enjoy!

smaller

1Way
May 25th, 2004, 10:01 AM
BChristianK - You do not understand my intentions, instead you ask about them. That is the biggest part of my point. If you jump to adverse judgmental conclusions about someone else, and then later you have no solid answers to questions about the initial intentions, then you have overstepped reasonable bounds by trying to establish what you do not understand. Without going back and re-examining everything, I think my name-calling was specifically over that isolated word selection, and that I most likely either explained my reasoning that we should be more inclusive towards others, or the emphasis was not towards you in general, it was specifically an emphasis on your word usage coupled without (an inclusive) explanation. But I will specifically check out these things in my next post.

When it comes to something you find fault in me, you seem very interested in spending lots of time and effort, even if your assumptions are not well founded. I hope you will put that much effort into our debate. And I hope I am not drawn to repeat ignoring large portions of your posts because of so much misunderstanding.

I'll get specific with what has not been dealt with soon, I just wanted to point these things out in the mean time. Thanks for the added notes of respectful consideration towards Clete and myself as well. And thanks for the prayers for opened doors in my local area. I have done no study about alternatives on divine foreknowledge. So far, I am of the type that says that either He has exhaustive foreknowledge or He does not.

I personally saw William Lane Craig at a local Christian college for a speaking engagement. I forget the topic, something about exposing the people who voted on whether or not red letter words were actually spoken by Jesus, "the people of the Jesus seminar" comes to mind, it's been quite a few years. He was exposing extremely liberal scholarship, he seemed pretty conservative and was a good speaker. Would you please give me a short and quick version of the differences between those views (save open theism of course)?

If it is anything like the differences between "libertarian" verses "compatiblistic" free will, it is a distinction that I find untenable and besides the point, much like I find Arminianism which is in my opinion, inconsistent Calvinism or inconsistent neo-Platonism via divine immutability. Thanks for your time. My actual specific response to your last post will come soon. So please do not see this as a set back, I'm just moving forward with other things as it happens to be easy enough to do.

LightSon
May 25th, 2004, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by Brent

Clete is right. People who think the God of the Bible is a loving, gentle, ole St. Nick figure who ”knows their heart”, and “understands”... hasn’t read the Bible. The Christian God wasn’t powerful enough to hang on to his own creation. He went away to pout for a while, then he came back and started killing people. Sometimes he told “his” people to kill everyone. Other times, he did the killing himself. Occasionally, he would get pissed and start killing all of “his” people. Eventually he will destroy everything except for a few who have REALLY sucked up hard. They get to go to “heaven”. But I don’t know how they could call walking on thin ice, afraid to make one slip and get sent to hell, heaven. Does the Christian God like gays? Nope. He hates them. He wants to burn them in the lake of fire for ever and ever. Does he like Moslems? Are you kidding? Those demon worshipers will burn, burn, burn. Does he like Catholics? No way! Those pagan imitators of the Faith are the great whore who is drunk on the blood of the Saints. They will die, die, die! Does he like Protestants? NOT! They are the daughter of the whore. They are backsliders! They don’t have the Spirit. They’re lost, lost, lost. And what about the Pentecostals? Afraid not! They’ve faked the Spirit. Their eyes are only on the things of this world. Riches and fancy cars. They will be cast into HELL!!! All of them are going to Hell! MOVE OUT OF MY WAY MOSES SO I CAN KILL ALL OF THEM!!!

OK, so there’s your loving God.

Brent

Another jaded soul wanders into TOL seeking light and knowledge. Welcome Brent.

By your mocking sarcasm, we understand what you loathe and disbelieve. Please tell us, in a sincere, positive manner, what you believe about God and what the chief duty of man is.

BChristianK
May 25th, 2004, 11:35 PM
1Way said:



BChristianK - You do not understand my intentions, instead you ask about them. That is the biggest part of my point. If you jump to adverse judgmental conclusions about someone else, and then later you have no solid answers to questions about the initial intentions, then you have overstepped reasonable bounds by trying to establish what you do not understand.

As I said in my last post. I entertain this as a possibility.


Ok, so let’s assume that you are completely correct, and that I have totally misinterpreted your charges against me. If that’s the case, then I apologize for the misinterpretation.

Now it is incumbent on you to clarify what you have against me or drop it.


Only you and the Lord knew what you meant by Proverbs 6:19 in Post #71. Only you can confirm if it was meant as a personal attack or not. And the Lord is the One you will have to answer to [f]if[/b] you have used that verse inappropriately. I don’t even need to know at this point what your intentions were.



Without going back and re-examining everything, I think my name-calling was specifically over that isolated word selection, and that I most likely either explained my reasoning that we should be more inclusive towards others, or the emphasis was not towards you in general, it was specifically an emphasis on your word usage coupled without (an inclusive) explanation. But I will specifically check out these things in my next post.

Do what the Lord leads you to do.



Would you please give me a short and quick version of the differences between those views (save open theism of course)?

Sure. David Hunt takes the simple-foreknowledge which is basically the classic Arminian view. Hunt posits that we have free will but God foreknows the choices of free-will agents. In other words, Hunt proposes only one possible future world at the creation and that God knows which choice we will make.

William Lane Craig presents the middle-knowledge argument. This is quite a bit like Boyd’s argument except he posits that God knows not only the host of counterfactual circumstances that existed in the future at the time of creation, but what each person will do in each of those future worlds.

The difference between Boy and Craig is that Craig believes that God know what a person will do X in situation Y. While Boyd argues that God knows that a person may or may not do X in situation y.

And then there’s the Calvinist, Paul Helm, which says that it all happens the way it happens because God says so. You know this routine.

Hope that helps. The best thing about the book is that all the authors are given opportunities to respond to each others submission. So Boyd responds to Hunt, Craig and Helm. This is what I thought might be helpful to you.

Grace and Peace

BChristianK
May 25th, 2004, 11:40 PM
Boyd, Eddy, and Beilby are all theolgy profs (or ex-profs) at Bethel College, my alma mater. I am the most familiar with Boyd, who is brilliant and hilarious all at the same time. Every now and again, I atend his church, because he gives incredible sermons and is the most dynamic speaker I have ever heard. I also have a good buddy who plays basketball with Beilby at Bethel too.

That's cool.

:)

Grace and Peace

Clete
May 26th, 2004, 06:02 AM
Originally posted by BChristianK
The best thing about the book is that all the authors are given opportunities to respond to each others submission. So Boyd responds to Hunt, Craig and Helm. This is what I thought might be helpful to you.

1Way,

BChristianK is right about this book. I have it and have read much of it. It is excellent! Well worth the time to read! :thumb:

1Way
May 26th, 2004, 07:19 AM
Clete and BChristian - Thanks for the updates on this foreknowledge issue, very interesting. I still wonder if these so called differences are somewhat like the so-called differences between libertarian and compatiblelistic (spl?) freewill. Every time after hearing these distinctions, I'm happy to stick with free will or not free will.

I have heard something of this about Boyd before, and though it is interesting, I find it pretty philosophically based. Although it is off topic to our ongoing discussion, it is on topic to the scope of this thread's topic, so, please help me with Boyd's thinking. Also, I must say that Hunt's "simple" knowledge sounds anything but simple, unless I would qualify it as being simply silly or irrational. ;)

Quote. Boyd argues that God knows that a person may or may not do X in situation y. That seems to me can be a very vague sort of knowing, because of the introduction of the full gambit of uncertainties (may or may not do) then this knowledge is potentially full of uncertainty. But if he means that concerning X, in situation Y, that man either will or will not do X, then I disagree with this formula. May or may not can mean yes or no in terms of action, or it can mean anything in between as well, so I would appreciate it if someone would clarify this not so small distinction for me. Thanks. Also, if I recall correctly, I assume that Boyd places this same exact formula concerning all yet future events, including ALL possible events. If that is also true, I also disagree with that postulation as well. More detailed info is requested, and no, I do not have the book, and no, I am not currently financially well suited enough to acquire it either. I'm going to see about going to a doctor today about my back pains from 4 months ago.

I bend the issue around certainty and varying levels of uncertainty, and some things are simply (to varying degrees) uncertain in the mind of God. God does not know many issues of yet future outcomes with much certainty. And I base a large part of that view from the biblical and rational acknowledgement of chance or random events, which have no moral or predictable determinants. :) So given this handy formula that applies to what extent I do not yet know concerning all things yet future, or all things possible yet future, etc. I would say the following.

God (to some variable extent of certainty) knows that a person may or may not do X in situation y.

Bethel? Is that Bethel collage close to Mishawaka or South Bend Indiana? Or is that another Bethel?

Brent
May 26th, 2004, 08:01 AM
"Another jaded soul wanders into TOL seeking light and knowledge. Welcome Brent.

By your mocking sarcasm, we understand what you loathe and disbelieve. Please tell us, in a sincere, positive manner, what you believe about God and what the chief duty of man is. "

~~~ OK. I think God is bigger than your religion. I've had enough Textual Criticism in college to know the scoop on the Bible, and I've had 25 years of "church", in all flavors, to have more than a stomach full of religious people. I've found them to be some of the most hateful, mean and arrogant people that one could ever meet. Their "love" only applies to those who agree with them. If they manage to put you into their "devil" category, then they feel they have a mandate to go after the enemy of their God. Even in these discussion boards. They are so hateful and demeaning toward their Gods enemies (i.e. people who disagree with them). I think anything that gives someone the license, even encouragement, to hate other human beings should be against the law. For example, let's talk about homosexuals. I, personally, am kinda disgusted by it. Especially in males, since I'm a male, but I realize that they are consenting adults and that they are legal, tax paying citizens of this country and therefore are entitled to the same rights and liberties that we all enjoy. I, also realize, that if any one group has the right to ban the rights of a certain group, then, someone else could come and take away MY rights. Either we are all free, or none of us are free. I know people who are homosexual. It's kinda obvious, you know. However, I treat them the same as I would anyone else. I know that "my" sexuality is only a small part of who I am as a person, so, I realize that it's the same with them. Also, I don't like the way religions discriminate against women. They, also, are legal tax paying citizens of this country and are guaranteed equality under our constitution. Religions that try to regulate how a woman dresses, the jobs she can hold, her place in the family, etc., are discriminating against her for being born a woman. That is no different than hindering the desires and ambitions of a person who is born black or handicapped or whatever. Again, either we are all free, or none of us are free. I think that any group of people who claim to appeal to a higher authority the constitution of this country are subversive to our government and should be outlawed. It should not be legal, in this country, for religious groups to deny people rights which are guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America. I've found our Constitution and Bill of Rights far more just than any religious book I've ever read. In fact, I've learned the hard way, over the years, that if it were not for the wisdom of our founding fathers, religious people would still be killing and murdering each other for their gods, just as they always have. The venom in their words, today, is the same spirit that drove in the knives years ago. Just take a look at the Middle East. I can't imagine putting someone into a burning fire where they are supposed to scream and shriek in agony and pain for ever and ever when their only fault is that they believed their mother when she rocked them as a baby and sang about "allah". When everybody they trusted and respected in life told them "allah" was God. If you'll just THINK for one minute, you'll know how stupid this is. And how utterly impossible it is for this to be true. A God who would do that is not the kinda person I would want to hang out with. I been exposed to enough of the paranormal and studied enough about a lot of the new Physics to realize that we have a soul and that it has a mass. But, I believe God is MUCH bigger than all of the religions. And it disgust me to see how all of the religious groups are so anxious to see other people be tortured and destroyed. They feed off it and it seems to be what holds them together. That is, their common hatred of a perceived enemy (i.e. "the devil"). I think this war on terrorism that we are in will help the U.S. government to take note of the ambitions of the Fundamentalists religions within our own country.

Brent

On Fire
May 26th, 2004, 08:06 AM
Originally posted by Brent
A God who would do that is not the kinda person I would want to hang out with.

Good post, however, in this one statement you reveal the biggest mistake of your life. You propose to tell God how He should be? Now THAT'S silly.

1Way
May 26th, 2004, 08:20 AM
Clete - Is that a sampling of a fractal set for your avatar? If so, then I agree with the randomness it implies. Click here (http://www.mathjmendl.org/chaos/) for the website for this quote which I think says it fairly well. Chaos occurs when a system is very sensitive to initial conditions. Initial conditions are the values of measurements at a given starting time. The phenomenon of chaotic motion was considered a mathematical oddity at the time of its discovery, but now physicists know that it is very widespread and may even be the norm in the universe. The weather is an example of a chaotic system. In order to make long-term weather forecasts it would be necessary to take an infinite number of measurements, which would be impossible to do. Also, because the atmosphere is chaotic, tiny uncertainties would eventually overwhelm any calculations and defeat the accuracy of the forecast. The presence of chaotic systems in nature seems to place a limit on our ability to apply deterministic physical laws to predict motions with any degree of certainty. I wouldn't say with "any" degree of certainty, nor would I lop the physical laws into this vast assertion of impossible certainty, but I would say the uncertainty in the universe, especially concerning random events and non-predetermined things like many free will choices, present real world limits in terms of predictability and certain knowledge. Many things may be known with great certainty, but the amount of some degree of uncertainty presents a huge caveat in the world of certain knowledge. I believe this applies to God as well, He really is uncertain about a great number of things because they are simply not very predictable.

Consider the chances of getting a prediction right, if the option set is infinite(!!!) and the selection process is random! Imagine God saying to a computer system which can select ANY real number, so God says, ok, pick a number, any real number and I'll try to guess it. When you seriously consider the infinite nature of the option set, and the amount of unpredictability in the selection process (I posit it as being a random process), it seems only reasonable to assume that even God could not be a good guesser at a completely random and infinitely broad situation. If the range of sections was only heads or tails, and no other information to consider, then I say He would get it right about half the time, just like we would. But when you broaden the statistical options to infinity, the likelihood of a correct guess becomes infinitely uncertain.

So I give chance and or random causes authentic sway in reality, and that a free will moral agent involves a good deal of unpredictable determinants, even though I also affirm that we are comprised of a good deal of predictable determinants as well, but the total mix dictates that not all yet future responses can be certainly determined because of the desirable element of randomness, the personal freedom to act out of character, to create "new" insights and responses , to bring new thoughts and actions that otherwise would be nothing more than what was done before, i.e. predictable info!

Ya think? :D

Aimiel
May 26th, 2004, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by Brent

In fact, I've learned the hard way, over the years, that if it were not for the wisdom of our founding fathers...Did you mean wisdom such as this:

Founding Father Quotations (http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=21)

If so, then I agree with you, 100%. Our founding fathers were simply representatives of who we are today, The United States is becoming anti-Christ, and anti-God; but it's citizens are willing to fight, even to the death, to defend the rights of her citizens to choose their own thoughts, and not to have them shoved down their throats, as you appear to do so well; i.e. your expressed desire for what you label as 'Fundamental religions.' We (Christians) believe in God, and those who don't aren't free, we're just trying to see that they have, at least, the opportunity to become free, before they meet their Maker.

1Way
May 26th, 2004, 09:45 AM
Brent - You opened with this OK. I think God is bigger than your religion. I've had enough Textual Criticism in college to know the scoop on the Bible, and I've had 25 years of "church", in all flavors, to have more than a stomach full of religious people. I've found them to be some of the most hateful, mean and arrogant people that one could ever meet. and then I quickly found this The venom in their words, today, is the same spirit that drove in the knives years ago. Just take a look at the Middle East. I can't imagine putting someone into a burning fire where they are supposed to scream and shriek in agony and pain for ever and ever when their only fault is that they believed their mother when she rocked them as a baby and sang about "allah". When everybody they trusted and respected in life told them "allah" was God. This is hypocrisy. You site us (or a religious right) with being arrogant and wanting to thrust our views on society where they do not belong. Yet you are arrogant and want to outlaw us for doing what you want to do, you want to outlaw us! And we only want to outlaw crime and lawlessness. You are intolerant based upon your world view, and you prejudge based on religious faith, sounds like a budding little Hitler to me.

The conservative Christian view does not want have destructive venom. Middle East? You mean Judaism? They do not teach about eternal torment, you get more of that from Christianity. And you are completely wrong about the issue about native teachings about salvation, the gospel unto salvation allows for salvation for those who are ignorant of a formal understanding of the gospel message, i.e. someone who cannot represent how to accurately be saved or be right with God for all eternity.

I find you not at all filled with Bible knowledge; I find you filled with caustic venom and false accusations. By the way, the founding fathers of this country predominantly would have tossed you out to pasture for being a moron because they overwhelmingly included the Christian religion as the basis for how to govern this land. I agree that they got MANY things wrong, but I believe your entire argument against a higher authority other than the constitution is in and of it's self, self refuting. The allusion to God is throughout the founding documents for this country, even down to the dating of a document, it is a reference of affirmation to the most important person ever, God. Click here (http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/abortion/slave.htm) for the website for the following view.

Quote: I think human beings do have rights and those rights can only be properly justified and explained in the context of a theistic world view. That is the way they argued. If you read the Declaration of Independence, some form of the word God is used four different times and it is the very foundation of their entire case against England, the foundation for the Constitution, and our Republican way of government.

Lincoln's particular objection was to disqualify rights of a human being--what the Constitution calls "inalienable"--because of some physical characteristic. I'm going to accept the argument because this brings us back to the slavery issue, which the writer here said was not a fair parallel. I think it is fair because of the way the Constitution is worded. Lincoln, when he had his debates with Douglas, argued in a particular way. In his private notes he developed an argument and said something like this: Now, if you are saying that a black man is inferior, then you have to be careful because if his inferiority is in basic lack of intelligence and that gives you the appropriate right to enslave him, then someone else can use that argument against you if they have a higher I.Q. than you. In other words, he is saying that whatever rule you establish becomes a rule-- rule to justify one kind of behavior can be applied consistently in other areas and it is going to have some very deleterious results. This ought to be a hint to us that our rule is a bad one.
Lincoln's particular objection was to disqualify rights of a human being--what the Constitution calls "inalienable"--because of some physical characteristic. That was the foundation of his discussion. You can't say that because he is black, that he doesn't have rights. It is a physical quality. And anybody who is lighter than you are has more rights than you. That's your rule, isn't it? You can't say because Negroes are, to use his term, less intelligent gives you the right then to enslave them because somebody more intelligent can use your rule to enslave you.
Lincoln points out that it misses the point entirely to ground rights in some kind of physical quality of the body. Isn't this precisely the way this argument against the personhood of the unborn goes? It says in the Constitution--and it was even quoted in this article--that men are endowed with certain rights. How are they endowed? What qualifies them for the endowment of this inalienable right? It certainly isn't anything about their physical body because we would claim that all men are created equal in the context of this discussion in the Declaration. When we ask the question, In what way is it true that all men are equal?, we will never come up with any physical criteria that makes us equal. This helps us to realize and understand that the point of this statement is that men are equal in a way that is non-physical. The particular thing that is in view here is that they are endowed as men. That's why I said man qua men. They are endowed with rights as human beings. It is the fact that they are human beings that allows us to acknowledge the endowment by God of their inalienable rights. So what the Constitution says is that human beings are endowed by God with certain inalienable rights, and the endowment is not related to any physical thing in itself--any particular physical thing. We are endowed in a metaphysical way that is not related to our physical characteristics, but it is related to our humanness. End Quote:

Lincoln was right, the constitution of the US rules on the bases of inalienable "human" rights (given to us by God). See more from that web page why a materialistic view is insufficient, but a theistic view is the basis for the USA's (basic) form of government. Again, I do not say that our government is (simply) godly, but the clear intention and design of it was plainly founded on godly principles that find their roots from holy writ, again, bar the blatant mistakes, the point is only obvious, you argue against the very basis of righteousness for the constitution.

This is only but a small treatment to the fact that this nation was purposely created with the God of the Bible in mind (the creator of human life) as the supreme authority for matters of government and human rights. No reasonable assessment of the foundation for the USA discredits a purposeful and godly consideration with a deliberate emphasis on Christian articles of faith found in the bible, including the freedom of speech and religion. That is the hallmark of our free society and is what the bible teaches. I agree that hypocrites have done great damage to the reputation of the Christian faith, but a bad example is just that, a bad example, it makes the good example that much more authentic and respectable when it is properly emulated. Christians and Jews alike promote peace with their neighbors except to promote and protect inalienable rights to life and general liberties from harm and such. So, yes, the Islamic world view, which is more closely modeled by your worldview, which portrays religious bigotry by purposely targeting the Jews and Christians for persecution for being an infidel, while the Christian and Jew would live peaceably with ANY society of ANY worldview as long as they are not murdering and raping and other such violations of humanity. Are you sure you would outlaw us who support your right to not be Christian on the basis that these rights are inalienable human rights given to us by our creator?

Brent
May 26th, 2004, 10:26 AM
Hi Aimiel,

You know, really, you should take some U.S. History classes before you post biased web links. I read some of your link and it was taken out of context. Did you know that Benjamin Franklin was a deist and a skeptic? (i.e. “not a Christian"?). That is why Washington is laid out in all sorts of Masonic symbols. John Adams was a Unitarian (Search it on the Net). Our founding fathers were, as a result of the Church of England, weary of ALL religions and therefore enacted laws to protect the "State" from being controlled by any certain religion (i.e. separation of Church and State), and ensured freedom of all to participate in whatever religion, or lack thereof, that they chose. Btw, that is why the Declaration of Independence was written on a Mason's apron.

Brent

Brent
May 26th, 2004, 10:36 AM
“sounds like a budding little Hitler to me.”


“tossed you out to pasture for being a moron“


.....I rest my case.


Brent

1Way
May 26th, 2004, 10:52 AM
You rested nothing. I quoted you for sounding like a budding Hitler, I cautioned you to not be so violent against the rights of others. And I offered you ample evidence that you are self refuting by arguing for the constitution of the USA while also arguing against a foundation based on religious principles.

If these points of your contradictions are beyond your understanding, then perhaps you have rested your case.

1Way
May 26th, 2004, 10:59 AM
Brent - You said
Our founding fathers were, as a result of the Church of England, weary of ALL religions and therefore enacted laws to protect the "State" from being controlled by any certain religion (i.e. separation of Church and State), and ensured freedom of all to participate in whatever religion, or lack thereof, that they chose. That is not accurate. More accurate is that fact that they based the importance of religious freedoms on the teachings from scripture, that governments should not interfere in the realm of religion, but that the government should be directed specifically and overwhelmingly by the principles of what the bible teaches.

The fact that Franklin was liberal and some of the founding fathers taught error, does not in any way invalidate the entire thrust of the justification and rules for government that founded this nation, accross the board this nation was founded of principles taken out of the bible as the justification for a more perfect union. You are undone, you support the constitution, yet you attack the foundation or legs it stands on.

Aimiel
May 26th, 2004, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by Brent

You know, really, you should take some U.S. History classes before you post biased web links.Maybe you should, since your knowledge seems to be rather shallow.
I read some of your link and it was taken out of context. Did you know that Benjamin Franklin was a deist and a skeptic? (i.e. “not a Christian"?). That is why Washington is laid out in all sorts of Masonic symbols. Did you know that Jefferson designed Washington D.C., for the most part?
Our founding fathers were, as a result of the Church of England, weary of ALL religions and therefore enacted laws to protect the "State" from being controlled by any certain religion (i.e. separation of Church and State), and ensured freedom of all to participate in whatever religion, or lack thereof, that they chose.No, the only restriction they were attempting to create, which you, and all others of your ilk misconstrue, is that of restricting any laws from being enacted which might inhibit our religious liberty, which, by the way, is precisely what you espouse.
Btw, that is why the Declaration of Independence was written on a Mason's apron.No, it is written on paper. I've seen it. Have you? What country are you from?

1Way
May 26th, 2004, 11:05 AM
I suggest that you either admit that you discredit the bulk of history which proves beyond a shadow of doubt the religious foundation for the way this nation was formed, which subjective irresponsibility is ridiculous, or simply amend your views against certain inalienable rights, that to a significant extent, you agree with the liberties taught in the bible concerning human rights.

You may not like the religion, but you seem to agree with it's teachings concerning government and freedoms and rights.

Duder
May 26th, 2004, 11:21 AM
Brent -
. . . more than a stomach full of religious people. I've found them to be some of the most hateful, mean and arrogant people that one could ever meet. Their "love" only applies to those who agree with them. If they manage to put you into their "devil" category, then they feel they have a mandate to go after the enemy of their God. Even in these discussion boards. They are so hateful and demeaning toward their Gods enemies.

This results from a curious feature of human behavior, most likely a product of our evolution. Early, multi-family tribes banded together for mutual defence against predators or against other tribes. It is simply a matter of animal instinct - when you are threatened you want safety in numbers and you look to team up with allies against the threat. An enemy is the catalyst for the group's sense of unity.

The human environment is very different in the modern world - we are no longer in danger of being eaten by lions or speared by enemy bushmen on the morning walk to work. But the instinct or the habit remains. For our groups to hold together, they need enemies. Notice how every in-group hates or ridicules some out-group. For example, in order for my friends and I to feel like compassionate, enlightened liberals, we need to be able to point to a group of coldhearted and ignorent right-wing reactionaries - in other words, an enemy with which to hold our group in contrast.

Most of the Christians here are doing the same thing. In order for them to maintain their cohesiveness as a group of God's children, they need to define a group of devil's agents. And when you see their rabid hatred of fags, liberals, Muslims or whomever, all they are doing is trying as best they can to draw closer to one another.

It is a curious feature of human nature, is it not , that in order for me to love you I am required to hate someone else?

Once you understand this, you can transcend it with the aid of God's grace. You can compensate for it. You gave a good example of it yourself when you said that, even though you don't particularly like homosexuals, you don't need to make them evil so that you can feel good about being straight! Sure, you feel that little twinge of homophobia - so do I. But we recognizing it as no more than an outmoded evolutionary holdover, and we can laugh it off and proceed with our lives untroubled by it.

I think anything that gives someone the license, even encouragement, to hate other human beings should be against the law.

Oops! You backslid a little bit here. You are playing the same game as the Christians! In order to feel like a loving soul, you want to criminalize hatered. It's the same trap - the same primal throwback. You're playing the game of "I'm more tolerant than you".

Besides, it would be grossly unconstitutional to outlaw what is in people's hearts, or to outlaw organizations that promote it.


I think that any group of people who claim to appeal to a higher authority (than) the constitution of this country are subversive to our government and should be outlawed.

Again, you go too far. I agree that every citizen is bound to abide by the constitution. But the constitution is only a document - a piece of paper. It is a symbol only - a symbol that stands for something. It is not the thing itself - only a symbol of the thing.

This is what Christians fail to understand about the Bible. The scriptures are like a finger pointing the way to God, but instead of looking to where the finger points, the Christians commit the error of idolarty and suck the finger for comfort.

Don't make the same mistake about the constitution. It points to something higher than itself. The constitution does not want to be worshipped - it wants you to behave yourself in accord with higher principles that cannot exactly be codified. So don't condemn people for looking beyond the constitution. That is what wise people do!


. . . it disgust(s) me to see how all of the religious groups are so anxious to see other people be tortured and destroyed. They feed off it and it seems to be what holds them together. That is, their common hatred of a perceived enemy (i.e. "the devil").

So you see what I was getting at. Throwback, primative groups maintain their identity only in opposition against other groups. Real religion is meant to move people out of this primative condition - to broaden their loyalties and their spheres of concern and compassion. Religion is not the problem, it is the solution. But religion is a hard thing to find. Most people slide right back into their comfortable, unchallenging tribalism and call it religion. Others, as you will find if you hang out on this board for a while, have seen through the game of black and white and want others to break out of it, too.

Please don't think I was picking on you - I've enjoyed your thoughts and if I'm taking issue it's in a friendly way.

Welcome to the board!

Brent
May 26th, 2004, 11:28 AM
"No, it is written on paper"

zzzzzzzzz..... lol, no reply.


"I suggest that you either admit ".... that you need to ingest something other than the biased, party line, conservative, Rep fundies that have brainwashed you with. Have you ever taken a college level History class at a "secular" university? Never mind.

As to this: "to not be so violent against the rights of others"

Nice twist. All I can say is, how does it feel to have the same verdict applied to yourself that you, all, would place on the homosexual.... "outlawed".

We really need to keep an eye on your type. I feel fortunate to be under the protection of the U.S. Constitution. Btw, if you people ever get "prayer" back in public school... doesn't the majority rule? So, I guess your children are going to be praying to Mary, right? HeHeHe...

I am so glad that we are protected from your Taliban.

Brent

Brent
May 26th, 2004, 11:30 AM
Gadfly, cool!

It's OK if I vote for Kerry. Isn't it?

Later,
Brent

Duder
May 26th, 2004, 11:36 AM
Sure, vote for Kerry, you lilly-livered godless secular liberal commie intellectual elitist!

By the way, it's "Duder". So that's what you call me. You know, that, or "Dude", or "His Dudeness" or "El Duderino", if you're not into the whole brevity thing . . . .

I am the resident "gadfly". My role is to nag friend and foe alike.

BChristianK
May 26th, 2004, 11:38 AM
Brent,

You're post impress upon me that you are a young college grad who just listened to the commencement speech and got all fired up. You've been lurking here for awhile and now you are ready to take em' all on.

I get the impression you took a couple of textual criticism classes as humanities electives from a professor who was more than willing to parrot the scholastic liberal party line.

I took those classes to, then I investigated it, took some more classes and now realize that a great deal of textual critical arguments that discredit the authenticity of the bible are based on very poor scholarship.

Many of the folks you have lectured here on this thread have done similar research and will ask you to substantiate your blanket claims, and most know how to rebut those claims pretty efficiently.

So let me give you some friendly advice. Don't walk into the lion's den and smack the lions.

Grace and Peace

On Fire
May 26th, 2004, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by BChristianK

Brent,

You're post impress upon me that you are a young college grad who just listened to the commencement speech and got all fired up. You've been lurking here for awhile and now you are ready to take em' all on.

I get the impression you took a couple of textual criticism classes as humanities electives from a professor who was more than willing to parrot the scholastic liberal party line.

I took those classes to, then I investigated it, took some more classes and now realize that a great deal of textual critical arguments that discredit the authenticity of the bible are based on very poor scholarship.

Many of the folks you have lectured here on this thread have done similar research and will ask you to substantiate your blanket claims, and most know how to rebut those claims pretty efficiently.

So let me give you some friendly advice. Don't walk into the lion's den and smack the lions.

Grace and Peace :up:

LightSon
May 26th, 2004, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by Duder

Sure, vote for Kerry, you lilly-livered godless secular liberal commie intellectual elitist!


Alright, your Dudeshipfulness. One man's insult is another man's compliment. Stop kissing up to the new guy.

:D

LightSon
May 26th, 2004, 01:56 PM
Brent,
You started out berating Christianity, and I asked you to tell me about your "positive" views. To which you responded with more venom (negative views) about Christianity. Sorry. Perhaps I was not clear.

What I would like to know is what you believe about God, not what you dislike in others' belief systems. e.g Do you believe in God? What does your god look like? What are his values? Is he good? Is he willing and able to hold his creatures accountable for wrongdoing? Does your god even have a standard to which he would hold us accountable? These are just some rhetorical questions to get you started. I mean, if you are going to throw out my view, you should have something better to supplant it with. Yes?

Thanks.

Brent
May 26th, 2004, 07:12 PM
“You're post impress upon me that you are a young college grad who just listened to the commencement speech and got all fired up.”

~~~You don’t have to be young to graduate college. And I’m not. And I resent your demeaning attitude toward me, as if I’m so shallow that a commencement speech would have a strong effect on me.

“You've been lurking here for awhile and now you are ready to take em' all on.”

~~~Wrong again. I think I signed up on this site with another name about a year ago, but I only sat down, today, and read a few things.


“I get the impression you took a couple of textual criticism classes as humanities electives from a professor who was more than willing to parrot the scholastic liberal party line.”

~~~Partly correct. Then I explored further. I had a strong interest since I had, at one time been a ministerial major.


“I took those classes to, then I investigated it, took some more classes and now realize that a great deal of textual critical arguments that discredit the authenticity of the bible are based on very poor scholarship.”

~~~You’ve got to be kidding. The German Theologians I’ve read are vastly ahead of those red-faced Bible thumping fundies that spout all that infallible silliness.

“Many of the folks you have lectured here on this thread have done similar research and will ask you to substantiate your blanket claims, and most know how to rebut those claims pretty efficiently.”

~~~“Lectured”? Nope. Just an appeal to common sense.

~~~ Did anyone get it? Nope. You all just proceeded to do the very things that I was trying to point out.


“So let me give you some friendly advice.”

~~~Did I ask for any?

“Don't walk into the lion's den and smack the lions.”

~~~Why? Will you ATTACK! Go ahead. Show me the love of your God.

“Grace and Peace”

~~~I doubt seriously that you know “WHO” is the “Charis”. And “Peace” is something that that no religious person could know until they have vanquished all the enemies of their God. Of course, being the only person left alive, the soldier of the Lord would then, if truthful with himself, fall on his own sword.

Brent


Once Again...

~~~ OK. I think God is bigger than your religion. I've had enough Textual Criticism in college to know the scoop on the Bible, and I've had 25 years of "church", in all flavors, to have more than a stomach full of religious people. I've found them to be some of the most hateful, mean and arrogant people that one could ever meet. Their "love" only applies to those who agree with them. If they manage to put you into their "devil" category, then they feel they have a mandate to go after the enemy of their God. Even in these discussion boards. They are so hateful and demeaning toward their Gods enemies (i.e. people who disagree with them). I think anything that gives someone the license, even encouragement, to hate other human beings should be against the law. For example, let's talk about homosexuals. I, personally, am kinda disgusted by it. Especially in males, since I'm a male, but I realize that they are consenting adults and that they are legal, tax paying citizens of this country and therefore are entitled to the same rights and liberties that we all enjoy. I, also realize, that if any one group has the right to ban the rights of a certain group, then, someone else could come and take away MY rights. Either we are all free, or none of us are free. I know people who are homosexual. It's kinda obvious, you know. However, I treat them the same as I would anyone else. I know that "my" sexuality is only a small part of who I am as a person, so, I realize that it's the same with them. Also, I don't like the way religions discriminate against women. They, also, are legal tax paying citizens of this country and are guaranteed equality under our constitution. Religions that try to regulate how a woman dresses, the jobs she can hold, her place in the family, etc., are discriminating against her for being born a woman. That is no different than hindering the desires and ambitions of a person who is born black or handicapped or whatever. Again, either we are all free, or none of us are free. I think that any group of people who claim to appeal to a higher authority the constitution of this country are subversive to our government and should be outlawed. It should not be legal, in this country, for religious groups to deny people rights which are guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America. I've found our Constitution and Bill of Rights far more just than any religious book I've ever read. In fact, I've learned the hard way, over the years, that if it were not for the wisdom of our founding fathers, religious people would still be killing and murdering each other for their gods, just as they always have. The venom in their words, today, is the same spirit that drove in the knives years ago. Just take a look at the Middle East. I can't imagine putting someone into a burning fire where they are supposed to scream and shriek in agony and pain for ever and ever when their only fault is that they believed their mother when she rocked them as a baby and sang about "allah". When everybody they trusted and respected in life told them "allah" was God. If you'll just THINK for one minute, you'll know how stupid this is. And how utterly impossible it is for this to be true. A God who would do that is not the kinda person I would want to hang out with. I been exposed to enough of the paranormal and studied enough about a lot of the new Physics to realize that we have a soul and that it has a mass. But, I believe God is MUCH bigger than all of the religions. And it disgust me to see how all of the religious groups are so anxious to see other people be tortured and destroyed. They feed off it and it seems to be what holds them together. That is, their common hatred of a perceived enemy (i.e. "the devil"). I think this war on terrorism that we are in will help the U.S. government to take note of the ambitions of the Fundamentalists religions within our own country.

Brent

Brent
May 26th, 2004, 07:25 PM
Duder, Sorry about the name slip. I had just came off a 12 hr night shift. I was drunk. And it was about 1 o'clock. So, I by god didn't read it right. OK?

"Sure, vote for Kerry, you lilly-livered godless secular liberal commie intellectual elitist!"

Oh, I know. And right after I do it, my soul will be damned. I'll go get a chip put in my hand, start craving men, join a secret society, begin killing babies and invite a legion of demons to infest my body........

I have been a Republican for 20 some odd years, but I just changed my registration to Democrat.


Brent