ARCHIVE - You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar

[beanieboy]

Re: Married is married

Re: Married is married

bb-Nope, not at all. The Bible does not require repentance to be married, just a simple"I do."


Hey, I have to go on a three day (hopefully) hockey trip, early in the morning, so I won't be able to post till Sunday night or Monday.

Keep checking things out bb and don't die in the mean time.

See you all in a few days. By.

So, you can sin, without repenting?

Is this why fornication is rarely brought up on TOL - because people think - well, one day they will get married to someone, and stop fornicating? Ive been trying to figure that out.

Thanks for the reply.

 

[denversurvivor]

Re: Married is married

Re: Married is married

So, you can sin, without repenting?

Is this why fornication is rarely brought up on TOL - because people think - well, one day they will get married to someone, and stop fornicating? Ive been trying to figure that out.

Thanks for the reply.

I'll try to step in since Lion is out playing games with his kids.

Unrepentent sinners get married all the time. An embezzler can get married to a vandal and the marriage is still recognized by God.

I don't think Lion was implying that once fornacators get married those sins are somehow magicly removed.

Of course I'm speaking for someone else and maybe he does believe in magic?

 

[KurtPh]

Up here in Canada, a favourite potato chip flavour is salt and vinegar. I suppose, up here, one could catch more people with vinegar than with honey, as a honey flavoured potato chip seems really quite disgusting.

What does this have to do with the discussion topic?

Absolutely nothing.

Carry on.

 

[His_saving_Grac]

Originally posted by Knight
Awesome posts Lion! (especially the one before the last one!)

I will never cease to find it amazing that the quality of a post improves with the agreement to a moderators stance.

I am guessing that once again the definition of a word changes depending on who uses it. In this case, the word "awesome" must really stand for "uninformed". Such a pity.

Love you too ND.

 

[denversurvivor]

Originally posted by His_saving_Grac
I will never cease to find it amazing that the quality of a post improves with the agreement to a moderators stance.

I am guessing that once again the definition of a word changes depending on who uses it. In this case, the word "awesome" must really stand for "uninformed". Such a pity.

Love you too ND.

Why are you getting so worked up? Knight was just giving lion an "atta boy". Everyone on TOL gives props to those who agree with their opinion.

 

[His_saving_Grac]

Originally posted by denversurvivor


Why are you getting so worked up? Knight was just giving lion an "atta boy". Everyone on TOL gives props to those who agree with their opinion.

Hey there DS,

In all honesty, I wasn't worked up at all. I was just thinking of how ironic we, as a race, really are.

The truth is that a great post, or anything else for that matter, shouldn't really be placed on agreement of the idea, but more with how the information, reguardless of whether we really agree with it or not, is actually presented. And I know I am not any less guilty in this than anyone else.

The quality of anything shouldn't really be judged on whether we agree or not, but rather if the side being presented is done in a rational and unemotional way.

I realize we often give kudos to those we agree with, but the entire point of having a discussion forum is to present many different ideas and beliefs, many different ways of viewing the same thing, and the reasons that each of us has formulated their ideas. Almost every time someone views something differently than another is because of different ways they grew up, different life experiances, if you prefer.

Does that make their ideas less valuable simply because they approach it differently? No, because if we really consider the difference objectively, we will see that in the same position we would probably formulate the same answers those we are belittling do.

My post was more hoping to remember everyone has a side, and their side was formulated by their life experiances.

One of the reasons I type many of the posts I do is to remind myself constantly about my own failures and to keep them at the forfront so that I can improve where I am failing. Everytime I see my own words on in here I realize that often I am critisizing others for some things I myself still do. You have no idea how many partial posts have never actually made it here because, while typing, I realized my own hypocrisy.

I know that often I voice my frustration with the actions and words of others in here, but in all honesty I never express them as often as I catch myself doing the same thing.

I also know I do have a problem with those who follow Mr Enyart and his beliefs. The biggest reason to me seems to be the deception used in here by those who follow him. I just can not see deception and Jesus being used in the same place, yet I see it daily.

For example, earlier in this thread I repeatedly asked if Mr Enyart was a member of this forum. I had been led to that assumption by some contradictory statements made by those who run or moderate this forum. We are told that only subscribers were allowed to post in one area of this forum. Then we see a post supposedly started by Mr Enyart. While at the same time there is a huge announcement stating this forum has no church backing. If Mr enyart is a member, then that second statement is false, since he admittedly has his own church in Colorado.

But if the second statement IS true, then the thread could not have been started by Mr Enyart, and the lack of answering that question is also a deception, since it appears to everyone as thought Mr Enyart actually posted that thread.

Now if Mr Enyart is NOT a paying member then that thread should not have been posted in that section of this forum based on the rules Becky explained to me. If Mr Enyart IS a paying member then this site has church sponsering. If that thread was started by someone else (webmaster maybe?) then that fact should have been made clear to all that Mr Enyart didn't actually post it, but was posted with his permission.

But since every one of the points was ignored by those who would know the answer, it continues to be an attempt at deception.

Now to clear this up before your response comes back, let me explain that it isn't his membershipo or not that I have a problem with, but the idea of a Christian (or a group claiming to be christians) practicing deception while trying to also teach the word of God to others. That is also the reason I have problems with c.moore and squeaky. Neither of them actually deal with the truth in their lives. If you are proclaiming to be men (and women) of God, then deception just can not be part of your life.

The only other part about the philosophy in here that bothers me is when a moderator steps out of his/her role in which they should be trying to keep a discussion ration and without the namecalling, but instead they instigate the name calling themselves.

As I said, I know that I am not unique and innocent myself. I realize this often enough as I proofread my posts. I also realize that one thing I can never do is speak and teach about God while practising deception. My children would see right through it. And if they do, so will those who are more 'worldly'.

I just hope that people will start judging the things a persons says more objectively instead of by how much we personally agree. I would much rather see a reply says "You know, I really have never thought about it that way. Let me think about it. I will get back with you very soon. Thank you very much for your input."

 

[Lion]

back from the trip

back from the trip

bb-Well, denversurvivor has already explained the principal, (and thanks denversurvivor), so I will just elaborate a bit. I refer you to my previous post,

So, once they got married, I would accept them back, however I would still be talking to my son, trying to bring him back to the Lord. Knowing full well that without God to cement them together, the chances for them staying together is very slim. (More than 80% of the marriages where people lived together before marriage end in divorce).

Now why you think this gives you permission to sin…

Your quote: “So, you can sin, without repenting?”

…I don’t know. In the first place you wouldn’t be sinning anymore, in terms of fornication, as soon as you got married. Just as a thief is no longer committing the sin of theft once he stops stealing, even if he doesn’t repent. He may have just stopped stealing because he was afraid of getting caught. But since he isn’t stealing anymore he isn’t committing that sin.

And secondly, as I pointed out above,I am still trying to get my son to come back to God. This doesn’t mean there hasn’t already been damage done to their relationship, there has, and there will still be consequences, as also noted above. But with a loving relationship, with God at its head, they would be able to work through the hardships they have caused themselves.

 

[Evangelion]

Well according to Philip Yancey, this entire discussion is moot anyway.

 

[Lion]

Ok I'll try it.

Ok I'll try it.

MSG-Philip Yancey? You know, I really have never thought about it that way. Let me think about it. I will get back with you very soon. Thank you very much for your input.

 

[beanieboy]

Re: back from the trip

Re: back from the trip

Originally posted by Lion
bb-Well, denversurvivor has already explained the principal, (and thanks denversurvivor), so I will just elaborate a bit. I refer you to my previous post,…I don’t know. In the first place you wouldn’t be sinning anymore, in terms of fornication, as soon as you got married. Just as a thief is no longer committing the sin of theft once he stops stealing, even if he doesn’t repent. He may have just stopped stealing because he was afraid of getting caught. But since he isn’t stealing anymore he isn’t committing that sin.

And secondly, as I pointed out above,I am still trying to get my son to come back to God. This doesn’t mean there hasn’t already been damage done to their relationship, there has, and there will still be consequences, as also noted above. But with a loving relationship, with God at its head, they would be able to work through the hardships they have caused themselves.

I don't want to get to off subject here, but there is something I want to understand.

A guy kills his wife because he is angry that his dinner is late.
He isn't sorry. He goes to jail. He gets out.

He never kills again, because he's not that angry again.
Is he now no longer a killer because he stopped that sin?

 

[His_saving_Grac]

Originally posted by Evangelion
Well according to Philip Yancey, this entire discussion is moot anyway.

I quite like the writings of Philip Yancey. I am about to read another book of his, What's So Amazing About Grace?.

I don't agree with everything he says, but his books are quite refreshing and uplifting, which, in todays world, is something we need much more of.

 

[Lion]

dumbocrat or re-republican

dumbocrat or re-republican

bb-That is referred to as the argument of Over Generalization, IE - A man murdered his wife. The man is a murderer, therefore all men are murderers.

If a man stops stealing, is he still a thief?

If a man was a dumbocrat and then grew up and changed parties, is he still a dumbocrat?

I don’t think so.

Of course in a just Christian society that would be a moot point since the murderer would be put to death and would no longer be anything, on this earth anyway.

 

[Zakath]

Re: dumbocrat or re-republican

Re: dumbocrat or re-republican

Originally posted by Lion
bb-That is referred to as the argument of Over Generalization, IE - A man murdered his wife. The man is a murderer, therefore all men are murderers.

So the Christian doctrine of Original Sin could actually be said to be based on a logical fallacy?

Adam disobeyed YHWH and sinned.
Adam is a human being.
All humans are descendants of Adam. Therefore all humans are sinners.

Sounds a bit weak to me...

If a man stops stealing, is he still a thief?

If a man was a dumbocrat and then grew up and changed parties, is he still a dumbocrat?

I don?t think so.

If more people followed your way of looking at things celibate heterosexuals wouldn't be called heterosexuals.

 

[beanieboy]

Re: dumbocrat or re-republican

Re: dumbocrat or re-republican

Originally posted by Lion
bb-That is referred to as the argument of Over Generalization, IE - A man murdered his wife. The man is a murderer, therefore all men are murderers.

If a man stops stealing, is he still a thief?

If a man was a dumbocrat and then grew up and changed parties, is he still a dumbocrat?

I don’t think so.

Of course in a just Christian society that would be a moot point since the murderer would be put to death and would no longer be anything, on this earth anyway.

Lion. That isn't what I said - a man murders his wife - therefore all men are murders. Not what I said at all, nor the logic I used.

I was asking if a specific person stops doing something, ie. killing, are they suddenly no longer a killer? Is Manson, specifically, for example, not a killer now because he hasn't killed anyone for quite some time?

 

[Lion]

silly arguement

silly arguement

Adam disobeyed YHWH and sinned.
Adam is a human being.
All humans are descendants of Adam. Therefore all humans are sinners.

Z-No that argument doesn’t work because the reason we believe that Adam fell is because the Bible tells us so. The Bible also tells us that because of Adam’s fall we are all corrupted.

We don’t take the supposition from a non-literal logical argument but rather from the source itself.

If the Bible didn’t tell us that all men fell in Adam then we would be using that argument if we claimed it to be so on our own authority. Although even then we could test the theory and find that it is true even if the Bible didn’t tell us so. Because it is obvious that every one is a sinner (or in your world view, that all have done things they know to be wrong).

Z says-If more people followed your way of looking at things celibate heterosexuals wouldn't be called heterosexuals.

Really? Then what would they be called? Abstinent? Well, that would be right.

 

[Lion]

are you still a bed wetter, when u stop wetting the bed?

are you still a bed wetter, when u stop wetting the bed?

bb-Sorry, perhaps I was over generalizing.

But the point I was trying to make, is that words mean different things in different circumstances, sometimes, but not always, depending on the seriousness of the sin.

For instance: Charles Manson is a convicted Murderer, so we in our language may call him a murderer, without being wrong, even though he isn’t currently murdering.

However, if you stole a candy bar from the local 7’11 ten years ago and haven’t stolen anything since, would people still call you a thief? No.

Fornication is an even simpler matter because it isn’t a crime at all, (although it should be).

So let’s look at this realistically. You have given me an example where we would still call a person a murderer. And I agree with it.

Would you call a person that had stolen something ten years ago, but hasn’t stolen anything since, a thief? Or would you say, he use to be a thief?

In the same way, a couple that are no longer fornicating, are no longer fornicators. They use to be fornicators, but now they are abiding by the law that God set forth.

 

[beanieboy]

I (gulp) agree. It is a little tricky.
But, in that case, couldn't someone argue - ah, well, if I won't be a fornicator when I find someone I want to spend the rest of my life with, then I might fornicate all I want now?

It's as if to say, "I might as well steal until I get a good job. Once I get the good job, I will have enough money, and I will no longer be a thief."

See what I mean? It's like you have an out when you get married, so why NOT fornicate? (yes, there are reasons, but it leaves little to discourage anyone either.)

 

[Lion]

bb-Yes of course there is always a semblance of an out. However that semblance ends when looked at with consequences in mind. There are always consequences to actions.

When a man steals there are numerous consequences to those actions. There will be harm to the person that he stole from. To the society that has to shoulder the price. To the man’s conscience that may well plague him and of course the consequence of facing God with his theft remembered.

Same thing with fornication, only worse in many ways. As I have already pointed out the vast majority of divorces happen to people that live together before being married. Add to that the fear and guilt of living in sin and (for the man) knowing that he is making a tramp of his supposed loved one, as well as (for the woman) giving herself to a man that may never want her for anything more than selfish pleasure.

Plus the possibilities of sexually transmitted disease, the emotional destruction when couples break up, the possibility of unwanted pregnancies, the emotional harm and shame caused to other family members, and the harm to society. Not to mention the damage caused to others in close proximity to you in relationships. For example; younger siblings or children you impact, that use you as a role model. Your life style might lead them to believe that it is all right, helping them to destroy themselves and others.

And there is the answering for ones actions in heaven. If the man is a Christian then he will still be forgiven (*although he will still suffer loss), however if the woman is not, she may never come to God, seeing his children as hypocrites, because of the man’s selfish actions. How horrible to know that you helped send the woman you loved to hell.

*I Cor. 3: 12-15 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 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. If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

So, although it may seem an easy out, it is anything but.

 

[beanieboy]

Well thought out. Thank you.

 

[denversurvivor]

Re: Ok I'll try it.

Re: Ok I'll try it.

Originally posted by Lion
MSG-Philip Yancey? You know, I really have never thought about it that way. Let me think about it. I will get back with you very soon. Thank you very much for your input.

Who says conservatives aren't funny? Lion your post was great. Not because I agree with it, but because of the way it was presented. I was rolling on the floor.