Is Enyart worshipped like Jesus
- Thread starter Delmar
- Start date
Agape4Robin
Member
DD, just when I begin to wonder if we are on the same team....you say something wonderful like this!deardelmar said:
Good job! :BRAVO:
Well, not in every case, right? Paul tells us: 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.julie21 said:
How was it a good thing for someone "named a brother" to be shunned to the most extreme measure in certain circumstances?
It could. Good things can come of a response like "Stuff them!". First as Clete stated before, a person who witnesses to a sinner will likely not reap a brother or sister in Christ the first time. Second, God would prefer if someone is going to be evil, that they be completely evil (and visa versa, if they be good He would prefer them to be extremely committed to being good) so moving up defiance against God is not necessarily the worst thing. God hates luke-warm Christians the worst. Third, how do you know that Paul's instruction I mention above won't result in them having a better relationship with God?julie21 said:
Ok. Try this. Consider a woman in your church has been married and divorced 5 times, and she is currently shacked up with a guy. Let's call her "Fifi". Would you say during anniversary announcements that Fifi is coming up on her 1 year anniversary of living with that guy? I would hope that the members of your church would be as uncomfortable hearing that as Fifi would. When Jesus talked with the woman at the well, He wasn't having a comfortable conversation with her. Again, if you think that saying things to her in such a way that she is comfortable, you certainly aren't talking with her about that which is destroying her life!julie21 said:
It could. Good things can come of a response like "Stuff them!". First as Clete stated before, a person who witnesses to a sinner will likely not reap a brother or sister in Christ the first time. Second, God would prefer if someone is going to be evil, that they be completely evil (and visa versa, if they be good He would prefer them to be extremely committed to being good) so moving up defiance against God is not necessarily the worst thing. God hates luke-warm Christians the worst. Third, how do you know that Paul's instruction I mention above won't result in them having a better relationship with God?Johnny said:
I would hope so! Is there something wrong with being judgemental?Johnny said:
If they know what they are doing is wrong, wouldn't they want people to be honest with them?Johnny said:
Tell you what. So you don't have to read all 39 pages (assuming you keep the default number of posts per page); go to the search form and look for all posts by Yorzhik in the forum "Bob Enyart Live". Perhaps you will see why the answer is "yes".Johnny said:
As Clete would say, "Of course not". Of course mustering up a few harsh words is not the most loving thing one can do. You need to go back and read what "Of course not" means.Johnny said:
So you are equating hate and not being nice? Not being nice = hate; is that correct?Johnny said:
Uh, yeah. It's being Christ-like.Johnny said:
Luk 13:15 The Lord then answered him, and said, [Thou] hypocrite, doth not each one of you on the sabbath loose his ox or [his] *** from the stall, and lead [him] away to watering?Johnny said:
Mat 6:2 Therefore when thou doest [thine] alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
Mat 6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites [are]: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
Mat 6:16 Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward
And this would be just the beginning! Sheesh, man, if that's what you call weak then you must think that support for claims that gravity makes things fall is weak as well.
Here's where the exercise of looking at my previous posts will come in handy. I've never mentioned a claim from the OT to support mocking sinners. Not that I wouldn't - the OT does just a good a job as the NT at showing we should mock sinners.Johnny said:
So, I have to ask; Johnny, am I your enemy or your neighbor?
Last edited by a moderator:
You can either continue to show the compassion of Christ, or give it a good old fashioned one shot-cut em off christian tounge lashing and hope it works. Because after that, you've pretty much isolated that person from yourself. I say the former is more Christ-like. As to "cutting them off", there's a difference between "I can't be around you while sin is destroying your life and your relationship with God" and "Get away you filthy slut." One demonstrates love and a genuine concern with spiritual well-being.
Ok, so it's not the worst thing. They're still going to hell. And that's why you insult them, right? Because you want them to turn away from hell?
Probably about 75% of the time..
You don't have to lie to them. You could tell someone "Your sexual addictions are sinful against God".
It doesn't matter what "of course not" means. You answered my question: of course it's not the most loving thing one can do.
No. Someone asked "Does Enyart say that it is okay to hate sinners?", and Clete responded "Yes." As Clete would say, "Love and hate are not mutually exclusive." That's why I used the term "hate".
Why don't you limit your mocking to "hypocrite" and "fool"?
Hypocrite, hypocrite, hypocrite, and hypocrite.
Here we go. Let me guess, you're going to excuse 99.9% of the human population from these two groups, and thus you aren't bound to love them?
Again, I will quote Timothy, because you completely ignored him.
II Timothy 2 "24And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient,
25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will."
Gentle:
# Considerate or kindly in disposition; amiable and tender.
# Not harsh or severe; mild and soft: a gentle scolding; a gentle tapping at the window. (dictionary.com)
2 a : TRACTABLE, DOCILE b : free from harshness, sternness, or violence (m-w.com)
I also ask you: Jesus ate with sinners. Will you be Christ-like, or will you follow Paul's instruction?
--------------------------------------------------------------
I think you'll find that most of the name-calling on this forum is not the same name-calling you are defending (and I'm not suggesting that you should be defending it). Lighthouse called me a dumbass and suggested that perhaps I was a failed abortion attempt after suggesting that fetal kicking is not evidence of a soul. By any measure, he failed to make a case and a good argument for his position. He then resorted to derision and claimed it was justified. Just because someone doesn't see your point of view doesn't make them a dumbass or an idiot. We are only human. We still interpret the Bible within the context of our experience. We are still slave to our own bias and subjectivity. We are not 100% right. Thus, I don't think it's justified in any way to call someone a name for disagreeing with you, even on issues you feel strongly about. Everyone has been wrong in the past, and everyone will continue to be wrong in the future. It's part of being human. That's not directed at you, Yorzhik, it's directed at everybody reading this.
Last edited by a moderator:
=calling her a slut. You don't think that would hurt someone? Just insert the phrase you would use in place of "sin", and then replace the phrase with its one-word description.Johnny said:
You aren't making sense here. Please re-state.Johnny said:
Great. So you answer to the question "is judging wrong?" with "no". Now we can move to the question of when judging is proper.Johnny said:
"sexual addictions" = slutJohnny said:
Fine. I'll use the words "sexual addictions" in the future. Will I have become loving then?
Good point. I wasn't clear. Assuming you meant "Only mustering up a few harsh words is the most loving thing you can do." Then my answer stands. So let me go back (I should have made you clarify in the first place).Johnny said:
In response to your quote; "The God of the Universe became a man and let his creation beat him, mock him, spit on him, and nail him to a piece of wood, because he loved us. That's love. Are you telling me the most loving thing you can muster up is a few harsh words for someone who obviously needs the love of Jesus? Sickening."
The question should first have been: "do you mean that we are claiming that the most loving, the epitome of love, is to only muster up a few harsh words for someone who obviously needs the love of Jesus?"
If your answer to the question immediately above is "yes", then my answer stands - "Of course not, there are other responses we might have."
If your answer to the question is "no", then please explain what you meant in the first place.
Oh. Great. Then the answer to your orginal question; "It seems that you justify your hatred by claiming that it's really love because the loving thing to do is lead someone toward salvation and that's what hatred does. Is that correct? Then you must assume that hating the unsaved is a more powerful testimony for Christ than loving them?" is "Yes, if the situation warrants it."Johnny said:
Because, you fool, it's the principle involved.Johnny said:
Is calling someone a "hypocrite" somehow not a harsh word to you?Johnny said:
So is that "neighbor" or "enemy"? We can get to where I put the rest of humanity after you answer that question.
Last edited by a moderator:
There's a difference, though. If you fail to understand that the manner with which truth is spoken is of key concern, then you probably haven't been involved with much social interaction. It is one thing to tell someone they are wrong. It's another thing to insult them. And yes, they both may be offensive to some degree, but there is a clear difference.
What's the whole purpose of your language? To drive them to Christ and save them from hell, right? You argued that it could be worse (i.e. they could be lukewarm), but I said that it defeats your purpose if you're driving them away from Christ.
As I mentioned before, Jesus was in a much better position to judge who the fools and the hypocrites were. You don't have the same luxury.
It is harsh. But note who it is directed at: hypocritical religious leaders. James 3:1 "My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation."
You're my neighbor. "2. FELLOWMAN" (m-w.com) "3. A fellow human." (dictionary.com)
Now, answer my question: Jesus ate with sinners. Will you be Christ-like, or will you follow Paul's instruction?
Because I'm drunk with power!! :devil:
Sometimes you forget to put the slash in the "close quote" tag or something. That makes your next response appear in another quote box within the quote. I tend to fix vB tag typos when I see them.
Sometimes you forget to put the slash in the "close quote" tag or something. That makes your next response appear in another quote box within the quote. I tend to fix vB tag typos when I see them.
Last edited:
I just cut the dashed line in Johnny's post #587 down to size because it was making the whole page too wide.
Is there's no stopping me? :devil:
Hey, here's an obscure vB tag y'all might want to keep in mind:
[ line]100%[/line]
becomes a solid line that goes all the way accross your post:
[ line]80%[/line]
becomes a centered solid line that is 80% of your post's width:
...and so on! :thumb:
Is there's no stopping me? :devil:
Hey, here's an obscure vB tag y'all might want to keep in mind:
[ line]100%[/line]
becomes a solid line that goes all the way accross your post:
[ line]80%[/line]
becomes a centered solid line that is 80% of your post's width:
...and so on! :thumb:
Last edited:
I apologize for being away. I spent my three full days off from work battling a computer virus that kept me crippled and offline. After spending an entire day and a half installing windows 4 times and talking to Microsoft and burning virus definitions to CD, I think I finally won. I'll spend some time reviewing posts.
I don't fail to understand. Insulting someone the short form of telling them they are wrong.Johnny said:
You are wrong. Disciplining one's children uses the same principle. It isn't nice, but it helps the relationship.Johnny said:
Because Jesus is better, we are unable? What kind of useless thinking is that?Johnny said:
A couple things here. Is it okay to insult someone, but only if they are a religious leader, and also only if they are acting the fool or being a hypocrite?Yorzhik said:
And secondly, if greater condemnation includes insults, does lesser condemnation mean only saying someone is wrong without insults? or does lesser condemnation mean no harshness at all?
If your enemy is a human, does that mean your enemy is your neighbor?Johnny said:
I'll be at least Christlike and insult the religious leaders that deserve it. That's what you would say being Christlike is, right?Johnny said:
Are you saying that Paul was un-Christlike? Are you saying that Paul taught others to be un-Christlike?
Last edited by a moderator:
temple2006
New member
Nah Yorzik.... It is the short, demeaning, nasty way of telling someone they are wrong
